UL is... not a lot, and no chute.

I haven't flown one - only sat in one. It does seem very solid and is really nice.

If you can live with the UL and the chute is not something that floats your boat, it's looks like a great plane.

I would like to fly the joy stick control. From what I've read, they've engineered some "feel" into it.

The Cirrus has an actual yoke as opposed to the joystick, but they engineered some "feel" out of it with the spring cartridge.

If the UL was the same and it had a chute, it would put a MAJOR dent in the SR sales. I would probably prefer it if that, although I would have to fly it to know.

The useful load of an Acclaim is ~1000 lbs. It holds 102 gals of fuel. Optional air conditioning is 60 lbs; optional TKS is 39 lbs empty and with full load of fluid (6.3 gals) is 93 lbs.

The Columbia 400 we flew in 2008 had a sidestick, not a joystick, as I recall.

No more comments from Russ. Must be out flying his 400!

and without a chute. Mike C will be proud

Just for the nuts of it...

Fastest propeller driven aircraft: TU144 540 mph

--paul

I read it was also the noisiest.

Vince

-No chute

-No De-ice solution or problematic (Thermawing) while Cirrus had it for years

-Limited service center network

-Columbia not a household name

-Lots of wonky stuff that made it feel like a kit plane (cowling pins - difficult to remove, partial wing-walk tape only, wood side sticks and wood fuel selector, horrible choice in fabric for the headliner, terrible airplane to work on)

-Push/Pull Vernier engine controls (not sexy)

-Not as well proportioned look-wise as a Cirrus.

In the speed vs. chute wars, the chute won.


-Pascal

Hunh ? The TU-144 is a (retired) Mach 2 supersonic airliner.

-Pascal

i'm bias, but i believe the lancair/columbia wins the "ramp looks" every single time

I'm bias, too! But I also believe the 400 wins in ramp looks.

And I really liked my vernier throttle in the Bo. Thought I'd miss it more. I don't, for the most part. Love the look and convenient placing of the Cirrus throttle.

Outside, I like the 400 looks. It's hard to beat the set-up of the Cirrus cockpit.

i agree completely, that's why I tried to mimic it with my layout as much as I could, having said that, I think the Epic cockpit (and evolution) have forever tarnished my image of an "ideal" cockpit, they're just so perfect, I like how the Cirrus utilizes the center space better than mine does, but moving my fuel selector and changing my seats is far too invasive, so i'll just deal with it

the TTx placing a GTN 750 right there between the seats under the pilots right hand is, interesting.....

Hunh ? The TU-144 is a (retired) Mach 2 supersonic airliner.

-Pascal

Personally, I like the look of the Cirrus more than the others.

Does a Cirrus have a rear-view mirror (to take advantage of the rear window)?

The 150's/172's in which I trained in '69 had the mirrors. Maybe to see who was taxiing behind, or to see a Bonanza overtaking the Cessna?

I have an 08 400. It has air conditioning, is turbocharged, has inadvertent de ice equipment, holds 102 useful gallons and has a useful load of 970 pounds. I'm not sure why I always hear the plane is weak on UL. Similarly equipped and fueled the UL is higher than Mooney or all Cirrus airplanes except the recent generation I believe. It looks better! Doesn't sell because of its history and the lack of parachute imho

i'm bias, but i believe the lancair/columbia wins the "ramp looks" every single time