The Columbia/Corvallis/TTx have carbon fiber wing spars(both of them), an internal carbon fiber cockpit cage structure and carbon fiber control surfaces. The aircraft are certified in the utility across the entire flight envelope (for whatever that is worth).

I appreciate the humor. I am wrong in that other materials are used. The fuselage is carbon fiber reinforced rather than all carbon fiber. I guess I just remember the Lancair Certified sales pitch being heavy on carbon fiber (C300) vs. fiberglass (SR22).




From us????, not a chance. We're all terribly well informed. It's that wealth of personal information that keeps us in conversation here on Beechtalk on a daily basis. Let's just say we're giddy with it.

And we all fly good looking airplanes too.

I said I believe that the Cirrus is painted. Ma boat's painted too, in awlgrip.

I believe that the Corvalis has carbon fiber in certain areas to re-inforce the strength, just like my boat. I believe that the Corvalis has a Nomex core for stiffness and strength, which I believe is made from Kevlar. I don't believe that the whole bird is made of carbon fiber.

I believe that you may prove me wrong.

But at the end of the day skippy...... Superman was the man of steel, not the man of carbon fiber.....and he never had to pull the chute........therein lies the difference!!

I appreciate the humor. I am wrong in that other materials are used. The fuselage is carbon fiber reinforced rather than all carbon fiber. I guess I just remember the Lancair Certified sales pitch being heavy on carbon fiber (C300) vs. fiberglass (SR22).




From us????, not a chance. We're all terribly well informed. It's that wealth of personal information that keeps us in conversation here on Beechtalk on a daily basis. Let's just say we're giddy with it.

And we all fly good looking airplanes too.

I said I believe that the Cirrus is painted. Ma boat's painted too, in awlgrip.

I believe that the Corvalis has carbon fiber in certain areas to re-inforce the strength, just like my boat. I believe that the Corvalis has a Nomex core for stiffness and strength, which I believe is made from Kevlar. I don't believe that the whole bird is made of carbon fiber.

I believe that you may prove me wrong.

But at the end of the day skippy...... Superman was the man of steel, not the man of carbon fiber.....and he never had to pull the chute........therein lies the difference!!

[/quote]The scenario that I am suggesting is for this particular pilot, who, in my opinion will never have exceptional stick and rudder skills. Why not, I don't know. He is, on the other hand, an extraordinary golfer!! and I can't drive a ball straight to save my life!!

Jgreen[/quote]

Interesting statement by a seasoned (no doubt) flight instructor. My first FI back in 1990 lasted about 12 hours. He may or may not have been a good teacher but his teaching method and my learning method were not in sync. He probably thought that I was hopeless and I was. The guy was a hummingbird, always moving, always talking. He'd make me nervous just sitting in a chair in my living room

I asked the flying club to provide another instructor and this new guy was calm, almost sleepy. He was a good teacher, though, and explained everything in a way I could understand.

I got my private with him and then my commercial. Will always remember his teachings. He got me through a difficult learning process.

I now have well over 3000 safe hours.

Heh heh, not a problem. Someone down voted me, guess they don't get my humor. As stated earlier, I'm a huge fan of plastic airplanes. I'm actively looking for a Cirri. If there was a plastic Pilatus, I'd take that over the metal one too that I'm looking at.

I'll also take anything with a chute over two engines too.

That's just me, cause I certainly ain't superman

I remember someone saying the Columbia 400 was on display somewhere with an SUV sitting on one of the wings

The 400 has always been an interesting aircraft to me. The were definitely trying something new...

The Lancair Certified C300 was certified utility with one of the two wing spars cut. It is a very strong wing.

On the other hand the tail tore under landing oscillations before a landing gear SB was applied. I have wondered if that was a directional strength issue but don't really know.



I remember someone saying the Columbia 400 was on display somewhere with an SUV sitting on one of the wings

The 400 has always been an interesting aircraft to me. The were definitely trying something new...

It was less about shimmy and oscillations and more about the pilot "walking" the gear when standing on he brakes while landing hot on a very short field.

But I believe it was addressed by a shim on the wheels. Do you recall the exact fix?

I saw pictures of a couple of damaged planes and in both cases the airframe was totaled. I've never seen anything like it on a Cirrus or a Bo.

Well, as a guy who owned a Cheetah (75 Traveler, actually, but basically the same plane), I can answer that. I could actually afford to purchase and fly the Traveler, whereas the Tiger would have broken the bank at the time. In the Traveler, I flight planned for 125-128 KTAS on 7.5 GPH, and usually burned less fuel than planned. It was a great plane, and I loved flying it. The Tiger would have been 5-10 knots faster, at the expense of an additional $12-$20 per hour, and a savings of maybe 15 minutes per flight. All that for about $20K additional up-front cost? No thanks.

From the standpoint of a PC12 driver, I would imagine that ANY of the airplanes you read about are 'slow' airplanes... But Champ or Citation, they are all airplanes, and any of them can bite you if you are careless. And ALL of them are someone's dream airplane...

My current plane is a great example... The Commander looks great, has a huge cabin with doors on both sides, runs great LOP, and is incredibly stable without being "ponderous"... Most on this forum think of it as "too slow", but I'd rather spend 6 hours in the Commander than 3 in a smaller, less comfortable cockpit. And after all, I fly for fun. The same trip in a Champ would yield more flight time (=more fun), but would impose other limitations.

Different strokes for different folks. That's what makes for variety, and variety is the spice of life.

I wish this idiot would get his facts straight. There are availability issues recently and the repack cost has gone up over the $10K number. It seems $14K is a more accurate number for the new design rocket vs. $9K for the old.

Cirrus is the plane everyone wishes they had, but don't want to admit it. A Mercedes driver will continue to buy a Mercedes even though a Hyundai is a better car. Same thought pattern.

I have no desire to own a Cirrus (again). Had one (SR-22), hated it. Sold it within four months.

I have no desire to own a Cirrus (again). Had one (SR-22), hated it. Sold it within four months.

Like the plural "ones" Arlen....I'd just settle for one....lol.