Among various aircraft models, some are the equivalent of basic condominiums. Nothing fancy, reasonably common, and generally straightforward to own and live in with few headaches or surprises. A Cessna 172 and Piper Cherokee would fall into this category nicely, serving as fantastic first airplanes that are easy to own, fly, and maintain.

But many people eventually outgrow their starter homes and want more out of house ownership. A garden, perhaps, or possibly a pool. Maybe some more square footage and garage space. A home that demands more attention and upkeep but one that also provides a richer, more in-depth ownership experience.

Similar opportunities abound to take airplane ownership to the next level, and the two types featured here do so in their own unique ways. The Navion, with its 1940s-era lineage and systems that bear more similarity to a T-6 Texan than a 172, demands more knowledge and attention than the simplest types, but its unique military background and extensive community of friendly, dedicated owners make it a type with which few will ever become bored.

Similarly, the rarity of the Meyers 200 demands that each owner becomes something of an aeronautical curator. With around 125 examples built and only 78 remaining on the FAA registry, an owner must sharpen their sleuthing skills and network to source certain parts and experienced maintenance. The flying techniques, mechanical nuances, and subtle design features are not an instant Google search away. But support among Meyers owners is passionate and generous, and newcomers are enthusiastically welcomed into the tightly knit fold.

Here, we explore each type and compare what it offers owners beyond the basic performance specs.

Design and Evolution

From the outside and from a distance, the Meyers and Navion appear somewhat similar. Both are low-wing, retractable-gear singles. Both emit the growl of 6-cylinder engines, primarily 200 to 285 hp Continentals. And both provide their occupants with panoramic visibility out of an array of windows. But approach them for an up-close look, and significant differences become apparent.

On the ramp, the Navion stands taller than any single-engine, low-wing piston this side of a Mooney Mustang. More than a foot taller than the Meyers and more than 3 feet longer in both length and span, the Navion is a massive, truck-like machine with a cabin volume that follows suit. For pilots who appreciate roominess in a cabin or simply enjoy the feel of flying a large, substantial aircraft, few single-engine piston options top the Navion.

The Meyers is a compact, svelte machine by comparison. But a glance at the specs reveals some hidden surprises. Despite the smaller size, its empty weight is nearly identical to the larger Navion, but with 22.5 fewer square feet of wing area, the numbers hint at the higher-speed capability of the Meyers. Per each company’s data, the smaller Meyers has an inch more cabin width than the Navion—another indication that one of these types abandoned ease of production in favor of meticulous engineering.

The Meyers 200 was certified in 1958 and saw small, methodical improvements through the course of its production run, which came to an end in 1967. The first production model was the 200—only two examples were built, and they were both equipped with the 240 hp Continental O-470M engine. The 200A replaced the 200, and the change upgraded the engine to the 260 hp IO-470D.

In 1961 came the introduction of the Meyers 200B, which had an improved panel layout as well as a higher structural cruising speed and redline. This was replaced by the 200C, which incorporated a taller passenger cabin and larger windshield. The 200D was the final model with a 285 hp IO-520 and a flush-riveted wing. Together, these enhancements produced a notable improvement in speed to the tune of 210 mph at 7,500 feet and 75 percent power.

Partway through the production run of the 200D, Aero Commander purchased the type certificate and tooling and continued building the airplane as an Aero Commander 200D in its plant in Albany, Georgia. Later, the Interceptor Corp. purchased the type and marketed the airplane under that name but never sold any examples. Because both Meyers and Aero Commander produced the 200, however, it’s important to search for classified listings under both manufacturers so no options stay hidden and unnoticed.

Similarly, between 1946 and 1962 the Navion was manufactured by a number of different OEMs, all of which should be searched for when shopping for one of your own. Initially built by North American Aviation in the 1940s, the Navion was later constructed and sold by the Ryan Aeronautical Co., and finally, the Navion Aircraft Co. and Navion Aircraft Corp.

By the time production ended, more than 2,600 examples of the aircraft had been produced. Toward the end of the run, the Navion Rangemaster appeared with tip tanks and a traditional roof incorporating one left-side door.

The Navion was not built specifically for the military, and while all military L-17s are Navions, not all Navions are L-17s. Nevertheless, the overall design incorporated a number of systems and features the military found appealing. The hydraulic system which powers the gear and flaps, for example, was easily understood and maintained by service members. Additionally, the robust airframe and landing gear designs were well suited to the unimproved landing areas that military Navions would visit in their liaison role.

Conversely, while various design aspects of the Meyers also emphasized durability and robustness, the airplane was more comparable to a coachbuilt luxury car than a Jeep. Although it incorporated features such as a chrome-moly steel cage wrapped around the passenger cabin, the overall design is more complex and would prove decidedly more time-consuming to manufacture than the utilitarian Navion.

Market Snapshot

Other than price, useful load can be the most notable difference between the two. Given the relative rarity of each type, it’s perhaps not surprising the sample size of the examples available on the open market follows suit. In our survey, we were only able to find two Meyers and seven Navions listed for sale. Like other types, the value of each has climbed significantly in the past few years, and the difference in value between the two types corresponds with the consensus among owners that the Meyers tends to be the pricier of the two.

An analysis of the FAA registry reveals that while the number of actively registered examples has naturally and predictably decreased among both types, a higher percentage of Meyers aircraft remain. Of the 125 examples built, 78 (62 percent) are still active on the registry. In comparison, only 33 percent (858) of the 2,634 Navions built remain in the database. The reasoning behind this is unclear, but it’s possible the rarity of the Meyers motivates owners to repair badly damaged 200s and return them to service rather than part them out.

Whether shopping for a Meyers or Navion, a prospective buyer would be wise to engage with the owners’ group to inquire about unlisted examples and possibly connect with current owners beginning to entertain the idea of selling. In addition to benefiting from sneaking into line ahead of other buyers, an airplane owned by an active member of that type’s owners’ group will likely have been better cared for than one possessed by an inactive, uninvolved owner or estate.

Flight Characteristics

One of the most significant differences between the Navion and Meyers becomes apparent during the boarding process. With the exception of the later Navion Rangemasters that incorporated a traditional roof and left-side cabin door, all standard Navions have a large canopy that slides back on rails to provide access to the entire cabin. Not unlike a Grumman AA-5, you step from the wing into the cabin and lower yourself directly down into the seat.

The Navion’s canopy exhibits pros and cons. On the one hand, the ability to completely open it makes it very easy to access the front or rear seats and similarly smooth to load oversized baggage. Opening the canopy on a hot day during taxi provides a refreshing blast of air through the entire cabin—and it can even be opened in flight.

A downside to the canopy is the challenge it presents concerning the installation of shoulder harnesses. With no fixed overhead anchor points to attach them, most owners fly their Navions with only lap belts. Some install lap belts with integrated airbags for an additional layer of safety, and a few have installed custom-built frames behind each front seat that provide a place to mount shoulder harness anchors. But while there are solutions, it’s a concern with which the Meyers and Rangemasters, with their traditional doors and roof, need not contend.

Settling into the Navion, it’s easy to appreciate the vast amount of space in general and shoulder/headroom in particular afforded by the larger airframe. While various sources list actual cabin widths to be roughly within one inch of each other, the Navion feels notably more roomy at and above shoulder height, particularly compared to pre-D-model Meyers 200s. Navion owners report this space is greatly appreciated by their passengers, who are able to freely move between the front and back seats on longer flights.

In flight, the Navion is far slower than the Meyers in cruise, but its large flaps provide a 12 knot lower stall speed and fantastic low-speed handling qualities that make it comfortable to negotiate on short strips. Using the IO-520 as a baseline, the Meyers will cruise at roughly 180 knots compared to 145 to 150 knots in the Navion. As both will burn the same 13.5 gallons per hour in cruise, the Meyers becomes noticeably more economical to fly as the planned distances increase.

Both types exhibit fantastic handling characteristics, with the Meyers having a slight edge by virtue of torque tubes and pushrods in lieu of control cables. Both provide excellent, stable instrument platforms, and both have successfully welcomed new low-time private pilots to the ranks without issue. One owner who earned their private pilot certificate in a 172 and bought a Navion with 90 hours of total time reported feeling comfortable in it after around 10 hours of dual.

Although neither type possesses any unique pitfalls or traps into which unsuspecting newcomers might fall during initial training, it is advisable to locate an instructor intimately familiar with the type for transition training. Instructors can be found in each respective type group. Several have been formed, such as the American Navion Society (ANS, navionsociety.org) and the Meyers Aircraft Owners Association (MAOA, meyersaircraft.org). The cost of airfare and lodging to bring a qualified instructor to your location is regarded as money well invested.

• READ MORE: Air Compare: Grumman AA-5 vs. Mooney M20 Series

Ownership

Both the Navion and Meyers are unique enough to warrant a special effort for a high-quality, thorough prepurchase inspection. When arranging one, it is desirable to proactively join the type group for the object of your interest— MAOA or ANS. For a nominal membership fee, one can engage with the group and become connected with qualified mechanics who are intimately familiar with the intricacies of each respective type.

In the world of Navion, owners commonly mention two specific pieces of advice. They point out that because of the wide range of subtypes and selection of supplemental type certificates available for the airframe, no two Navions are alike. Additionally, they caution against purchasing certain engine/propeller combinations.

With regard to the less-desirable engines and propellers, the concern is less with the components themselves but rather the availability of parts and service. The geared Lycomings, such as the GO-435 and GO-480, for example, are not well supported by the manufacturer, and the number of engine shops that will even consider performing overhauls on them is dwindling. Similarly, replacing the rare, splined Hartzell propeller fitted to certain engines can be cost prohibitive. Owners advise spending more upfront to acquire a Navion with a more easily serviceable engine and prop rather than deal with such headaches down the road.

While Navion owners report no onerous or burdensome recurring airworthiness directives (ADs) with which to contend, the Meyers boasts an airframe with zero airworthiness directives since introduction—a claim not commonly seen among comparable types. When shopping for a Meyers, the limited production numbers do not allow a prospective owner to become choosy, but fortunately, there are no subtypes or modifications regarded as ones to avoid. If one has the luxury of multiple examples from which to choose, three primary factors come into play—general condition, engine horsepower, and the taller passenger cabin of the 200D.

Corrosion is far less of a problem for the two types than others of the era. In the case of the Meyers and earlier Navions, each manufacturer enthusiastically slathered the airframes in alodyne and zinc chromate to protect the metal. Later Navion manufacturers were less generous with the protectants, but nevertheless, corrosion issues typically don’t haunt either airframe.

With both types, it’s critical to buy from an owner who has willingly spent money on preventative maintenance rather than deferring it. Just as ignoring a few missing shingles on a house’s roof can result in structural rot and expensive repairs, deferring repairs on a Meyers or Navion can easily lead to costly, substantial work in the future. An owner with a spotless, meticulously organized hangar and detailed expense records will likely have been a good caretaker of the airplane they’re selling.

Insurance cost is a concern with both types. While owners with substantial time in the models report figures as low as $2,500 at typical hull values, new pilots with little time in type can see quotes as high as $7,000 to $10,000 per year. Some only carry liability insurance, keeping their premiums to $1,000 a year or less. It would be wise to shop around and learn how many hours in type various insurance providers would require to lower their premiums before committing to either type.

Our Take

Like many aircraft comparisons, evaluating the Navion and Meyers head-to-head becomes less a matter of crowning a winner and more about matching the strengths of each to one’s particular preferences.

The Navion is a larger airplane that was optimized for mass production and incorporated robust engineering and systems that were well suited for military use. The owner community is extensive and vibrant, with regular events and fantastic support. The Navion’s military lineage remains strong, with owners conducting regular formation flying clinics and group fly-ins. In today’s market, most Navions can be had for tens of thousands of dollars less than an otherwise comparable Meyers.

The Meyers was designed with the singular goal of achieving fantastic speed and performance with little to no consideration given to simplicity or ease of production. Owners appreciate the steel cage that surrounds the passenger cabin as well as the blistering cruise speed and cross-country capability that make the Meyers the single-engine piston equivalent of a private jet. Although the Meyers community is far smaller than that of the Navion, owners are supportive and happily make resources available to one another, up to and including the original jigs and tooling, in the event an unavailable major airframe part is required.

Beyond the technical strengths and specifications, the less-tangible aspects of the ownership experience differ significantly as well. For an owner interested in the military ancestry of the Navion, that type will provide an entire layer of ownership experience that many other types lack. From the robust metal switchgear to the potential service history of an authentic L-17, these elements are entirely legitimate despite not being quantifiable on a spec sheet.

Similarly, the Meyers offers an ownership experience that might appeal to a sentimental type. An amateur curator of aviation history would relish the opportunity to become a historical caretaker of a rare aircraft type. Similarly, someone with a deep appreciation for careful, methodical engineering would enjoy the intricacies that lie beneath the skin of the Meyers.

Regardless, both options are well loved in their respective circles. For a pilot looking to move up from a more basic, entry-level aircraft into something that presents a greater depth of rewards and challenges, both the Navion and Meyers are likely to provide one’s heart with a long-term home.

Handwrought and Homespun as Quilting…

When FLYING associate editor James Gilbert flew the Meyers 200 for a pilot report in March 1965, he recognized straightaway its purpose: “Know how some airplanes give their game away at a glance? The Meyers 200 is one of these, with its intention written all over it: to go like a bomb.” Yet Gilbert also gave a nod to the handbuilt heritage of the Meyers OTW biplane from which it was born [as well as the Meyers 145 shown below]. Still, it made for “a dastardly attack on the villain drag.”

Conversely, the Navion came to be admired by our editors for its “likable, lumbering ” style, as reported in the May 1973 issue of FLYING. Peter Garrison wrote, “It may have lost out to the [Beech] Bonanza’s speed, but today, a Navion is sought after by people who value good flying manners above sheer velocity.”

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

The post Air Compare: Meyers 200 vs. Navion appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

In fact, iPads have caused a kneeboard evolution. The mission of the kneeboard hasn’t changed much since its introduction in the 1930s: Provide the pilot with a flat space to write on. The Apple iPad was introduced in 2010 and quickly found its way into the cockpit as aviation apps such as ForeFlight flourished. Pilots who sought to go paperless quickly learned their kneeboards were not designed to hold the devices. The manufacturers of kneeboards took note and began to design with that in mind. Some work better than others. Often it is a matter of preference. To get to the heart of the matter, FLYING put several to the test and came away with few we particularly liked.

Some Things to Consider

Kneeboards can be made from plastic, aluminum, or wood. Each has its own characteristics of weight and durability with a price tag that matches. It can be a challenge to find a kneeboard that works with your iPad or tablet because dimensions vary model to model and year to year. Make sure to know the manufacturer’s return policy before you purchase so you are not stuck with a kneeboard you cannot use because it doesn’t fit the device or shape of your leg.

Aviation Supplies & Academics for iPad Mini 

If you are looking for an economy of design, check out the kneeboard for the iPad Mini from Aviation Supplies & Academics. Shaped like a book, you put the iPad inside. Soft, gray microfiber protects the screen. There is a binder style clip for paper or a checklist and two loops on one side for writing implements.

Four plastic hooks about as thick as a toothpick ( for minimal screen disruption) hold the iPad in place. Nonskid strips on the underside of the unit and a 1.5-inch-wide strap with  Velcro keep the board secure to your leg, even during abrupt attitude changes and turbulence. This was the lightest board we tested, so light you almost stop feeling it.

Price: $45.95 to $54.95 – Buy it now

FlightOutfitters KB4 & Centerline

FlightOutfitters has several designs for iPad Mini users. According to FlightOutfitters founder Mark Glassmeyer, the KB4 is the latest evolution. Originally, it had plastic hooks to hold the iPad, but those wore out too quickly, so the company came up with a silicon rectangle with bands that secure the device by the corners. The kneeboard has a small pocket for writing implements. We liked the traditional Velcro strap along with friction fabric and two contour rolls mounted to the underside of the board to keep it from moving on your leg. It was comfortable even after two hours on a hot day.

The FlightOutfitters Centerline kneeboard comes in large and small sizes. The small earned our vote because of the fold-down platform with a smaller, molded case. This zippered compartment is the perfect size to hold your sunglasses or smartphone. If you’ve ever smashed your sunglasses in a kneeboard pouch, you will appreciate this. The bezel that holds the iPad uses the silicone straps and it rotates, so if you prefer your information in landscape as opposed to portrait, you are covered. This feature made one of my learners very happy, as he is a lateral presentation pilot. This kneeboard has a wide, elastic strap with Velcro closure, but this one feeds through a buckle for extra stability.

Price: $69.95 – Shop now

Battle Board Tech Edition

For the other kneeboards we tested, black was the only color choice. One of the things that sets apart the kneeboards made by Battle Board is you have options—sooooo many options—when it comes to color. In addition to black, you’ll find red, orange, green, brown, and gray along with several camouflage patterns. The color is not about fashion. Any color but black can help you locate your kneeboard more easily in a darkened gear bag or the back seat of a car.

The Battle Board Tech Edition—the iPad Mini stabilized board—is described as “turbulence-proof tablet integration,” which is military speak for “keeping the tablet on the board and the board on your leg.”

The board features a padded underside with wedges of nonslip material that can be positioned on your leg for better balance. Mesh provides breathability, so you don’t get that hot-book-on-your-thigh feeling. The elastic leg strap is one of the wider ones on the market and fastens with a metal G-hook that withstood turbulence and unusual attitudes. The company notes it makes the G-hook from recycled 81 millimeter mortar ammo cans.

The Battle Board Tech Edition kneeboard comes with easy-to-understand instructions, a necessity for setup to get the most out of the unit. It was also one of the most compact and lighter designs we tried. On the downside, the Battle Board unit was also the most expensive of the ones we tested.

Price: $109.95

• READ MORE: Three Things to Consider When Buying a Kneeboard

Sporty’s Flight Gear Bi-Fold

Sporty’s Flight Gear Bi-Fold kneeboard was the least expensive one we tested, coming in under $30. The elastic straps at the corners hold an iPad, and the clipboard is reversible so you can wear it on either leg.

The kneeboard also has a VFR/IFR cheat sheet with phonetic aviation alphabet hemispheric rule, basic VFR weather minimum, mandatory IFR reports, flight plan sequence, and transponder codes, just in case you forget these things.

Price: $29.95

Flight Gear iPad Bi-Fold

For the pilot prepared to spend a little more, Sporty’s also offers the Flight Gear iPad Bi-Fold kneeboard with two movable, vinyl-coated brackets held in place by a hook-and-loop fastener that it claims can be configured to hold just about any iPad or tablet on the market. The backside of the mounting surface has an integrated kickstand that allows you to place the iPad at an angle that cuts down on sunlight glare. If you’ve ever done what feels like an advanced yoga pose trying to read the computer screen in a sun-drenched cockpit, you will appreciate this.

This kneeboard boasts a plethora of pockets, including one that closes with a zipper for those really important items you don’t want to lose. The front face of the kneeboard has an ID holder that’s perfect for a business card. You will probably want to use this because most of the kneeboards on the market are black, so they all look alike.

Price: $39.95

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

The post Who Wins the Battle of the Aviation Kneeboards? appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Recently, FLYING had the opportunity to test the PJ2+ com radio from Sporty’s Pilot Shop. It’s the follow-on to the original PJ2 that won FLYING’s Editors’ Choice Award in 2020. The PJ2+ made points with me right off the bat because it has a direct plug-in for the headset. You don’t need a specialized adapter, which very often has gone missing. The direct plug-in allows you to communicate effectively through the boom mic.

Physical Parameters

The body of the PJ2+ measures 6 inches long and 2 inches wide. The antenna measures approximately 7 inches. That’s enough to communicate within the airport traffic pattern and on the ramp, but if you want to use the PJ2+ as a primary radio in aircraft, you’ll need an external antenna.

The PJ2+ weighs 1.12 pounds, which makes it easy to carry. For comparison, we placed it next to the Icom radio I have carried for years. The PJ2+ is larger, so there will be more space disruption in the gear bag.

You have options when it comes to a power source for the PJ2+. You can use six readily accessible AA batteries to power the device or make use of the USB-C port if your aircraft is so equipped. Sporty’s opted for the AA batteries because they are easy to find and relatively inexpensive.

You will appreciate this if you have ever had a handheld radio that required a specialized battery, charging station, or cord, and one of them went missing. Rechargeable batteries are not recommended.

If you use AA batteries, Sporty’s advises removing them from the unit when it is not in use for an extended period of time because when the batteries break down, it is often the end of the radio. Because I lost my Sporty’s SP-400 nav/com radio to hostile corrosion that could not be removed with a treatment of distilled vinegar, baking soda, and lemon juice, I paid extra attention to this. I recommend designating a specific pouch in your flight bag to hold the batteries—and only the batteries—when not in use. Make reinstalling them and removing them checklist items.

Bonus note: You do not need tools to replace the batteries on the PJ2+. The battery cover is removed by sliding it up. The unit takes six 1.5 volt AA alkaline batteries. There is a diagram on the cover to show you where to put the positive (+) and negative (-) terminal markings inside the case.

• READ MORE: Sportys Unveils PJ2+ Handheld Radio

Features from the Top Down

The radio accepts standard twin-plug aviation headset jacks. When the jacks are not in use, they are covered with a rubber gasket. A similar gasket protects the USB-C power jack on the side of the device. Both rubber coverings are attached to the body of the radio on one end, so they will stay with the radio and not disappear into the bowels of your flight bag. In addition to standard aviation headsets jacks, the PJ2+ also features a 3.5 millimeter jack to accommodate wired earbuds or a computer headset.

The antenna attaches via a BNC connector on top of the device. The BNC is standard for use on aircraft radios, so it shouldn’t be too difficult to attach the device to an existing aircraft radio antenna through a coaxial cable. The on/off and volume knob is on top of the unit. The on/off function has the feel and sound of a “click,” so you know when the radio is on even if you cannot see the screen.

The LCD screen measures 1.5 inches by 1.63 inches, which makes it one of the larger handheld com screens on the market. There is a lot of room for data presentation, including a low-battery indicator and several lines of frequencies. According to Sporty’s, the PJ2+ is capable of 760 com frequencies from 118.000 megahertz to 136.975 MHz. Both the data screen and keypad are auto-lit. The screen boasts enough room for 20 visual memory channels.

The buttons on the keypad are larger than most found on handheld coms—and more spread out. There is a designated 121.5 function on the “2” button, and memory clear is found on “0.” Function keys UP and DOWN—along with RCL for “recall,” MEM for “memory,” CLR for “clear,” and WX for “weather”—allow the user to access the automated weather frequencies for the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). You can also scan the entire frequency range.

On the left side of the device you find the flip/flop button—identifiable with the double-sided arrow—that allows you to move back and forth between the current and last frequency. The next button is the push-to-talk (PTT), shaped like a holding pattern on an instrument approach plate.

The last button has a stylized light bulb on it, as it is used to activate the backlighting for the screen and keypad. When used in combination with the “clear” key, it can enable and/or disable the auto-light feature to put it into night mode.

To get the most out of this radio, you will want to read the manual first. I know that is anathema to pilots that pride themselves on their ability to gronk their way through things, but to really get the most out of the device, spend a few minutes learning about its functions.

Test Flight

Our test began at a nontowered airport on a busy Sunday. We started off by engaging the search mode. When scanning for a frequency, when a broadcast signal is found, the word “search” flashes, and the unit stops on that frequency. If the broadcasting signal is cut off for more than two seconds, the search feature resumes until it picks up another signal in the 118.000 MHz to 136.975 MHz band. Pressing the “clear” key ends the search. You can reverse the search direction by pressing and holding the “UP” or “DOWN” key (whichever is appropriate) for one second.

You can put frequencies into memory by using either the search mode or adding them manually. Once they are in, they can be saved by pressing the “memory” key. Pull up the frequency by pressing the “recall” key and cycling through the channel numbers as they appear on the screen.

The 121.5 emergency key on the “2” gave us pause until we noted that you have to hold down the key for two to three seconds for the PJ2+ to automatically go to 121.5.

The search for the NOAA weather frequencies was easy and an excellent supplemental tool for our weather briefings. This was followed by a search for local frequencies. We listened to the weather and then accessed the CTAF. A radio check came back loud and clear.

We typed in the CTAF and a few ATIS and tower frequencies and saved them for use. The frequencies were visible in direct sunlight. To transmit, press the PTT button at any time while tuned to a com frequency to broadcast over the one you’ve selected. You know you are transmitting because the screen displays a “TX” beneath the frequency. When using the headset with the unit, the PJ2+ com’s internal microphone will be deactivated and the microphone on the headset may be activated by either pressing the PJ2+’s PTT or an inline remote PTT.

We flew three aircraft for the test: two Cessna 172s and a Cessna 182. On the first flight, we could hear Seattle Approach, but it could not hear us, nor did we expect it as the PJ2+ com transmitter power, as tested, is a relatively low 1.5 watts—normal for handhelds. We could hear Seattle, and therefore knew when to expect someone near us. It was a different story when we got closer to the towered and nontowered airports. Our transmissions were received loud and clear.

According to Sporty’s, the unit’s maximum transmit power is 6 watts, which is the maximum allowed by the Federal Communications Commission for portable radios. As noted by Sporty’s, “the real measure is how much a radio typically puts out in day-to-day use. We’ve tested the PJ2+ and the L6 and found they routinely put out 1.5 to 1.8 watts, which is a lot more than the 1.2 to 1.3 watts we see on other radios. More power obviously means more range.”

Some Challenges

One of the Cessna 172s had a RAM mount used to hold the device. The second Cessna 172 had a side pocket that worked great. The Cessna 182 has no cockpit pockets, so the PJ2+ was slipped into the side pouch of the bifold kneeboard I was using. It took a little experimentation to find an angle that didn’t have the antenna hitting the yoke.

One thing I would have liked is a more physically robust push-to-talk switch because a few times the PTT kind of quit during use. When I held my finger on the button, the button sort of disengaged. Several of my learners also attempted to use the device and reported the same thing—it was as if your finger slipped off the switch although you had the pressure on.

This story first appeared in the September 2023/Issue 941 of FLYING’s print edition.

The post Test-Flying Sporty’s PJ2+ Com appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Yet beyond the man, myth, and legend, lies one of the most clever distillers of human behavior as demonstrated in the collection of quotes in his new book, 101 Chuck Yeager-isms. The book converts his razor’s edge experiences as a combat and test pilot into analogies that can be applied to both pilots and civilians alike. Apparently, while Chuck Yeager was not only ahead of his time based on his aviation feats, he was a meme-generating machine for more than half a century, just waiting for this moment to be cool. His quotes are custom-tailored to today’s world: Nugget sized sound bites that don’t tax your attention, yet go a long way, packing enough pop to be the sonic boom on top of this literary ice cream sundae. 

When Did a General Make You Smile?

What stands out so prominently in this book are the laugh-out-loud moments that caught me off-guard. Yeager’s dry sense of humor echoes in almost every quote: “If everything is going well, check six,” or when asked how to recover an F-104 from a flat spin, “If you find out, let me know.” Sometimes the simple can mean so much, as when Yeager reminds you: “Don’t miss the tanker,” the message is clear—don’t be late, or you may fall out of the sky. The life and death repercussions of a pilot’s day to day can be applied to the most mundane moments of our lives. Even if your life is not on the line, your reputation and livelihood likely are. The analogies apply.

One of the few themes in this book that can feel a touch dated are Yeager’s references to “duty,” which refers to being selfless and doing what you’re told. It’s the kind of word that seems to be out of sync in today’s individualistic, cynical, and divided world. But coming from his lips, it reminds me that we don’t make heroes like we used to and maybe that’s because there are fewer people who truly believe in the concept of duty anymore. If anything else, this book is a reminder of the great things that can be achieved when we do our part and work together as one. 

• READ MORE: Yeager Leaves a Legacy of Speed

A POH for Life

I walked away from this book feeling like not only the better pilot, but the better person. Just when I thought there were no heroes left, Chuck Yeager has reminded me how much he has accomplished to earn his spot on the top of the mantle. 

Chuck Yeager, a decorated war hero, Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient, pilot with more than 12,000 hours in 361 makes and models of aircraft probably summed it up best when he said, “‘What a ride!’ This will be the last line of my obituary. Really.” And what a ride it’s been.

The post Good FLYING Reads: ‘101 Chuck Yeager-isms’ appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Piper PA-46-500TP Meridian

Though both turboprops seat six in pressurized comfort and derive their power from a Pratt & Whitney PT6A, that’s about where the comparisons between the TBM 900 and Piper Meridian end. The Meridian is a full 70 knots slower than the TBM 900 (330 ktas vs. 260 ktas), its range is nearly 600 nm shorter (1,582 nm vs. 1,000 nm), and it weighs nearly 1,400 pounds less (7,394 lb. MTOW—max takeoff weight—vs. 5,000 lb. MTOW). But the Meridian also sells for around $2.2 million versus the TBM 900’s purchase price of about $3.7 million.

Beech King Air C90GTx

There’s no question that the King Air C90GTx can carry a heavy load and has more room in the cabin, but it has a hard time competing with the TBM 900 in most other metrics. The C90GTx cruises at 272 ktas versus 330 ktas for the 900, its range is limited by virtue of its second engine, and operating costs are higher as well. The price of the C90GTx at $3.8 million is nearly identical to that of the TBM 900.

Cessna Citation Mustang 510

Cessna has paused production of the Mustang, but the model both used and new remains the single most common competitor to the TBM 900. The similarities are numerous, from top speeds within 10 knots to similarly sized club-configured cabins to Garmin G1000-based avionics suites. The two major differences, jet versus turboprop and twin versus single, are disputes left to individual philosophies.

Cirrus SF50 Vision Jet

Cirrus’ under-development single-engine jet seems an unlikely competitor for the more expensive, faster and longer-legged TBM 900. Then again, both models could suit pilots stepping up. While the TBM outdoes the SF50 in terms of speed (by 30 kts), range (by around 900 nm at max weight) and conventional beauty, it is not a jet and it does not have a chute. Coupled with the price delta, the SF50 could be a strong competitor for some customers.

*Preliminary figures from 2104

Pilatus PC-12

The somewhat more expensive Swiss single shares many things in common with the TBM, but as it has always been, buyers will not be confused here. The PC-12’s cabin is best in class, its rough-strip capabilities are legendary, and the big door allows absurdly big loads. But the TBM is faster by a lot, more fuel efficient, and sleeker on the ramp. As always, buyers will weigh these factors versus their typical mission profile and decide. We want one of each.

Read More: We Fly: TBM 900

Read More: The Latest on the TBM Series

The post Aircraft Comps with Daher-Socata TBM 900 Versus the World appeared first on FLYING Magazine.