BeechTalk - BT - Cessna Corvalis TTx

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Mar 2013, 14:43

Username Protected wrote:

Florian,
If I understand Jason's comments above, this thing is only 13 kts faster at 17,000' than your turbo Bo. Why would you want such a small fuselage/interior compared to what you have in a A36? :shrug:

Folks try flap gap seals, waxing the leading edges, modifying cowlings, new props, bigger engines, etc., all to just try to squeeze a few extra knots out of their plane.

13 knots is a lot.

This is a plane for someone that wants a Porsche 911, not for someone who wants a Ford Escort or a Chevy Suburban.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Mar 2013, 14:43

Username Protected wrote:

That sounds good in theory, but I am not sure it's really practical. How do you know how much fuel is in the tank? Either you need to keep track of fuel burn for each tank since last fueling, or you need really accurate fuel gages, or you need to be able to dip the tank. This certainly does not work well in a Bo.

Fuel totalizer. I'm sure the G2000 has that functionality.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Mar 2013, 15:29

Username Protected wrote:

This is a plane for someone that wants a Porsche 911, not for someone who wants a Ford Escort or a Chevy Suburban.

I actually have a 911 and a '06 Accord EX-V6-MT. Both have the same horsepower and top out at about the same speed, yet they are very different cars.

I wouldn't want a TTX to go 13kts faster. I would want it for:
- the DFC700,
- integrated glass cockpit,
- that touchpad controller,
- a sufficient number of doors,
- ergonomics not designed by an evil dwarf.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Mar 2013, 15:30

Username Protected wrote:

...not for someone who wants a Ford Escort or a Chevy Suburban.

You calling a turbo Bo a Ford Escort or a Chevy Suburban pilgrim? :box:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Mar 2013, 15:30

don't forget the .....cup holder. :coffee:

Username Protected wrote:

This is a plane for someone that wants a Porsche 911, not for someone who wants a Ford Escort or a Chevy Suburban.

I actually have a 911 and a '06 Accord EX-V6-MT. Both have the same horsepower and top out at about the same speed, yet they are very different cars.

I wouldn't want a TTX to go 13kts faster. I would want it for:
- the DFC700,
- integrated glass cockpit,
- that touchpad controller,
- a sufficient number of doors,
- ergonomics not designed by an evil dwarf.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Mar 2013, 15:31

Username Protected wrote:

True say! And this gives you the ability to get 235kt if you want to go high. And its fixed gear, less maintenance hassle and a guarantee you won´t land wheels up.

I dont know how the Columbias are to land, but the history with the Cirri has been that the springy landing gear contributed to a large number of prop-strikes and runway loss of control accidents. I dont believe that the insurance rates on either cirri or Columbia derivatives reflect a much lower hull-damage component than comparable Bonanzas.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Mar 2013, 16:25

The nose gear design is the weakest link and I bet that is the limiting factor leading to a max landing weight.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Mar 2013, 16:33

Username Protected wrote:

The nose gear design is the weakest link and I bet that is the limiting factor leading to a max landing weight.

That's something I hadn't heard before; where did you hear that?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Mar 2013, 16:55

Username Protected wrote:

don't forget the .....cup holder. :coffee:

So true!

- Martin

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Mar 2013, 22:57

They fly (and land) nice; ergos are nice (the stick is not like a Cirrus); avionics are nice; but its not FIKI or pressurized. For that much money its insane.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Mar 2013, 00:43

Username Protected wrote:

This is a plane for someone that wants a Porsche 911, not for someone who wants a Ford Escort or a Chevy Suburban.

I actually have a 911 and a '06 Accord EX-V6-MT. Both have the same horsepower and top out at about the same speed, yet they are very different cars.

I wouldn't want a TTX to go 13kts faster. I would want it for:
- the DFC700,
- integrated glass cockpit,
- that touchpad controller,
- a sufficient number of doors,
- ergonomics not designed by an evil dwarf.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Mar 2013, 15:41

They state FIKI is an option.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Mar 2013, 19:13

Username Protected wrote:

The nose gear design is the weakest link and I bet that is the limiting factor leading to a max landing weight.

That's something I hadn't heard before; where did you hear that?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Mar 2013, 19:52

I flew a 400 on three occasions and a 350 once. Personally, I like the handling characteristics at landing more than the Cirrus. In fact, I think I like the handling characteristics better than the Cirrus in all flight regimens. I like the handling of the Bravo much better and of the Bonanza best of all.

As for speed. The 400's I flew would true just under 210 knots at 12,000' all day long ROP and max cruise. I think the fuel burn ROP was like 21 gph. Going LOP saved a good bit of fuel, but sorry, I don't remember the TAS. That's humping but a Mooney Acclaim will do better still.

If I were going to spend that much money, I would put tip tanks, TN, and gross weight STC on a G36 hands down over the Cirrus, Mooney or Corvalis.

But then, I don't have that much money.

Jgreen

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Mar 2013, 19:54

Any idea of CHTs at the high speeds Cessna quotes? I'm wondering how many cylinders per hour it uses...

Cessna Corvalis TTx - 235 knots, Garmin G2000 14