If it did have corrosion it would be the first:

http://www.controller.com/listingsdetai ... 324205.htm

What is the scoop on these planes? Has TKS. Anyone put one in the ice?

I just can't refer to them as a Cessna. I owned a Lancair 360 before the bonanza and things that look that good don't have a Cessna logo on them..

Have 2 hrs in one. Really nice ride. Seems very stable. I suspect they take ice better than the Cirrus but I have no time in that.

Todd,

Take a quick look at the TKS system they have. Even worst than G2 Cirrus. Only covers about 2/3 of the wing.

Todd,

Take a quick look at the TKS system they have. Even worst than G2 Cirrus. Only covers about 2/3 of the wing.

Non FIKI. Non starter for that kind of coin, IMO.

Have to agree; although, FIKI is not as important as effectiveness. I had a FIKI P210 with boots and it was a dog in the ice. The TKS P210 is so far superior they are not even comparable.

A friend of mine was flying one for a while, he really liked it. Its a very strong airframe and I good climber with the dual turbo and lots of gas capacity.
He would fly it at FL200.
Look at it closely, its way better built than a Cirrus.

That's a pretty bold statement. What engineering data support it?

That's a pretty bold statement. What engineering data support it?

The Cirrus is certified in the NORMAL category, the Cessna 400 is in the UTILITY category, which requires the plane to be able to survive higher G-load, so the C400 is certified to be structurally stronger than the Cirrus.
When Lancair put the wing in a jig to put huge loads on the wing to see when it would break, they broke the TESTING JIG rather than the wing! Oops!

But that is just the structure, what about all the structural SYSTEMS? While a Cirrus has wound up grinding down into a field because one pin was left off of one aileron by one careless mechanic, when you pre-flight a C400, you look at (for example) the aileron attach-point and say: "Wow, That is some pretty heavy duty hardware. That could NOT feasibly break!" Then you see ANOTHER attachment just like it 2 feet out along the aileron. And then a THIRD after that!!! The mechanic could forget to assemble any one of these COMPLETE linkages and the plane would be UN-AFFECTED: The two remaining attach-points would easily do far, far more than hold the surface in place.

Not only is the C400 PHYSICALLY STRONGER, but the C400 can withstand failures that the Cirrus can not. You look at the trim tab actuator: and then right next to it you see a back-up. You look at the aileron actuator: and then right next to it see a back-up. Not so on the Cirrus.

Probably the Cirrus just sold better because of the chute, then maybe thats why it does not need to be made as strong as the C400.




That's a pretty bold statement. What engineering data support it?

The fit and finish was also way better on Columbia when they first competed against Cirrus. With the G3, I think Cirrus more than caught up in that department.

Also, I'm not sure why people believe their aluminum can is more survivable in an accident. There is only so much bending an aluminum "can" can do before you became part of the equation and it snaps your neck. Piper PA28 cabins are famous for finding dead people with broken necks during hard vertical landing crashes. Cabin compresses, snaps occupant necks and then snaps back. There appears to be little damage but the occupants are dead. Most survivable designs are where the cabin remains intact and a good 5 point harness holds you tight in the seats. It's slamming of the panel with your head that will kill you, not a few Gs this way or that way if you stay tight in the seat. Sorry, but one foot of crumbling aluminum is not going to make that much of a difference before you succumbed to cabin intrusion related injuries. Give me a intact cabin and an airbag...

I have to agree with you there. When you lock down in my Glasair you are not moving anywhere and the airframe will survive just about any forced landing that is under control. It would be nice to have airbags built into the shoulder harnesses.

Todd,

Take a quick look at the TKS system they have. Even worst than G2 Cirrus. Only covers about 2/3 of the wing.

I think the problem is not necessarily how much of the horizontal span of the wing is covered, but how far the panels go back on the wing. The G2 Cirrus panel did not extended back far enough over and under the wing which allowed the fluid to separate from the wing instead of flowing back. I talked to some people that flew a TKS G2 through what I would call "light" icing and he said after 15 minutes of it the plane was nearly uncontrollable. He was over the mountains and could not descend and being N/A he did not have the power to climb above it. The TKS was primed properly and was flowing, but the ice was building above and below the panels.