20 Apr 2024, 09:09 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna/Columbia 400 Posted: 04 May 2016, 18:09 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 02/18/12 Posts: 1001 Post Likes: +432 Location: Atlanta
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I love my airplane, can't see parting with it anytime soon
Seems I've asked you this before, but I can't remember. Is yours the pressurized ES?
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna/Columbia 400 Posted: 04 May 2016, 19:08 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/10/07 Posts: 8007 Post Likes: +6896 Location: New York, NY
Aircraft: Debonair C33A
|
|
Username Protected wrote: and if anyones browsing turns to buying, the experimental version of the Columbia/Coravlis/TTx airframe is the Lancair Super ES
We weigh less, carry more, go faster, and allow experimental avionics and other luxuries not found in certified aircraft- there's even a few with the BRS chute system installed!
I love my airplane, can't see parting with it anytime soon
These seem like incredible machines. It's a shame they are out of production. I wonder why.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna/Columbia 400 Posted: 05 May 2016, 10:51 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/14/13 Posts: 6072 Post Likes: +4650
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I love my airplane, can't see parting with it anytime soon Seems I've asked you this before, but I can't remember. Is yours the pressurized ES?
unpressurized! the pressurized versions are heavier and the rear bulkhead really kills the golf clubs, hunting rifles, skis, or in my case, dog crate
i'm fine with an o2d2 and cannula
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna/Columbia 400 Posted: 05 Dec 2021, 10:40 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/24/08 Posts: 2721 Post Likes: +1014
Aircraft: Cessna 182M
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I've seen some with TKS and some with ThermaWing. Is one considered better than another on these planes? Is there a speed penalty of one vs the other?
I'm assuming there haven't been engine issues with the turbocharged version? Gerry The Thermawing version has an additional alternator dedicated to the deice if I recall correctly. I have not seen any reports on issues - but carry an extra alternator all the time for the times you need deice vice fill the TKS for the times you need deice? To me the real problem is the (relatively) low UL of 1000 or less for a plane with FF of 600+ lbs. Makes it a great 2 place plane for long trips but 500 miles is likely not doable with 4 FAA normal size folks - unlike the Cirrus. I do wonder why it was certified in the utility category and wonder if more UL was in the jar if same plane could be cert to normal category. I think the COL400/Ttx is a great plane - but wish it had another 150lbs UL. The Thermawing alternator cannot help in that world. RAS
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna/Columbia 400 Posted: 05 Dec 2021, 11:30 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/23/13 Posts: 6784 Post Likes: +7329 Company: Jet Acquisitions Location: Franklin, TN 615-739-9091 chip@jetacq.com
|
|
Username Protected wrote: and if anyones browsing turns to buying, the experimental version of the Columbia/Coravlis/TTx airframe is the Lancair Super ES
We weigh less, carry more, go faster, and allow experimental avionics and other luxuries not found in certified aircraft- there's even a few with the BRS chute system installed!
I love my airplane, can't see parting with it anytime soon
These seem like incredible machines. It's a shame they are out of production. I wonder why.
Lance, the founder of Lancair is a friend of mine, the Reader’s Digest version is they were a victim of their own success, when they received certification for the Columbia series (airplane is built to Oregon, near the Columbia river) they sold crazy numbers. At one point it was a two year wait to get a new airplane. But, they struggled with funding. Wall Street wasn’t interested and out of desperation Lance made a deal with a well connected Malaysian businessman. They ended up “buying” is a nice word, they ended up buying Lance out and changed the name from Lancair. The Lancair Columbia 400 became simply the Columbia 400.
They still struggled with production and by this time Cirrus was winning the battle both in marketing and production. The Cirrus wasn’t the airplane the Lancair Columbia was, but you could get them. With Lance gone, things began to crumble, I’ve never asked exactly what happened with the dealer network, if they just lost confidence or what, but the dealer network evaporated. Columbia aircraft ended up in bankruptcy just a few years after Lance left. Cessna bought the company for $25M a fraction of what the Malaysian guy had invested.
Cessna moved production from Bend Oregon… that would prove to be a fatal mistake. It takes a lot of talent to build composite airplanes and Textron didn’t find that talent in Mexico. Cessna did their best to get it together, but it was too late, in February 2018 they quietly ended production of the Cessna 400TTX
_________________ It’s a brave new world, one where most have forgotten the old ways.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna/Columbia 400 Posted: 05 Dec 2021, 11:36 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/23/13 Posts: 6784 Post Likes: +7329 Company: Jet Acquisitions Location: Franklin, TN 615-739-9091 chip@jetacq.com
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I've seen some with TKS and some with ThermaWing. Is one considered better than another on these planes? Is there a speed penalty of one vs the other?
I'm assuming there haven't been engine issues with the turbocharged version? Gerry The Thermawing version has an additional alternator dedicated to the deice if I recall correctly. I have not seen any reports on issues - but carry an extra alternator all the time for the times you need deice vice fill the TKS for the times you need deice? To me the real problem is the (relatively) low UL of 1000 or less for a plane with FF of 600+ lbs. Makes it a great 2 place plane for long trips but 500 miles is likely not doable with 4 FAA normal size folks - unlike the Cirrus. I do wonder why it was certified in the utility category and wonder if more UL was in the jar if same plane could be cert to normal category. I think the COL400/Ttx is a great plane - but wish it had another 150lbs UL. The Thermawing alternator cannot help in that world. RAS
When they certified it, they did so in the utility category, Lance says it was a huge mistake. The FAA made them over build the airplane. Lance says it’s 225% of what it needs to be! Dang thing weighs 2600lbs!!
It is hell for stout.
_________________ It’s a brave new world, one where most have forgotten the old ways.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna/Columbia 400 Posted: 05 Dec 2021, 12:03 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 04/24/18 Posts: 727 Post Likes: +340 Location: NYC
Aircraft: ISP Eagle II SR22 g2
|
|
Username Protected wrote: and if anyones browsing turns to buying, the experimental version of the Columbia/Coravlis/TTx airframe is the Lancair Super ES
We weigh less, carry more, go faster, and allow experimental avionics and other luxuries not found in certified aircraft- there's even a few with the BRS chute system installed!
I love my airplane, can't see parting with it anytime soon
These seem like incredible machines. It's a shame they are out of production. I wonder why.
Useful load. CAPS.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna/Columbia 400 Posted: 05 Dec 2021, 12:44 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/18/12 Posts: 787 Post Likes: +399 Location: Europe
Aircraft: Aerostar 600A
|
|
Username Protected wrote: When they certified it, they did so in the utility category, Lance says it was a huge mistake. The FAA made them over build the airplane. Lance says it’s 225% of what it needs to be! Dang thing weighs 2600lbs!!
It is hell for stout. That is absolutely correct on both counts and very often overlooked. I owned a Legacy Columbia 300 and it had decent useful. We actually flew it one year from Paris to Corfu, 4 POB + baggage, 1,000NM , non-stop, in exactly 6 hours . Had well over 1 hour reserve on landing. Best 4 place tourer I've ever owned ! Currently I'm re-building a Corvalis 400 that suffered a landing incident. The NW and right MW were ripped off, prop destroyed, but the fuselage structure didn't budge one iota . I have bought Cirrus that were completely destroyed fromm much less.
_________________ A&P/IA P35 Aerostar 600A
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna/Columbia 400 Posted: 05 Dec 2021, 14:58 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/30/09 Posts: 3353 Post Likes: +1963 Location: $ilicon Vall€y
Aircraft: Columbia 400
|
|
I bought my 2007 Columbia 400 in 2016 and have greatly enjoyed owning it.
Zipping back and forth between our homes in Silicon Valley and Las Vegas at +200kts and plenty of comfort for my wife and I on an economical 15gph. So far, it has proven to be a great traveling machine, fast, thrifty with plenty of useful load for me. (mine lacks air conditioning which is about 40lbs). My normal flights are in the mid-teens on the nose-hose. The flexibility to venture up to FL250 is a nice thing.
Pressurization would be the next step up for me.
On why did it stop?
Don't forget the double whammy that Columbia got in 2007-2008.
1. The global economic meltdown.
2. A freak hail storm that destroyed 60+ brand new aircraft on the ground in Bend that were waiting delivery to customers.
Cessna bought the company in 2008 and instituted some good quality controls and know how. The 2008 probably the best year of the Columbia 400
But then Textron dropped the ball afterward. They made very few in 2009 and 2010, then they made NONE for several years because of how they managed things.
Textron moved composite production to Mexico, then had a wing debonding problem that triggered an emergency AD, which only affected aircraft that were still on the production line. That effectively shutdown the entire line for a couple of years while they figured out what went wrong and convinced the FAA they could fix it. So nada, no airplanes at all for a couple of years.
Then came the re-imagined Columbia 400, the TTx or "T240" They poured a bunch of money "improving" it but only managed to get TKS FIKI certified, some new LED landing lights, a snazzy new interior and the G2000. Oh yeah, and that snazzy new green paint scheme. While I like the TTx a lot (jet style autopilot on top the the panel and big screens) it didn't really address the things people were wanting, like improved load and possibly the CAPS system.
That and Textron didn't seem to learn anything from Cirrus on how to sell the thing effectively and get people upgrading on a regular basis. I'll hand it to Cirrus, they got that customer thing and market rotation down. Many, many returning customers to get the latest SR22 and trade in their 3 year old one. Then there is a big line of people waiting for the SF50 Jet.
Flying the Citation M2 having flown the TTx was eerily similar. It just felt the same and was an easy transition. I would think Textron could have made that stepping stone work for them. But I guess it isn't their thing. The Mustang was the "owner flown" jet. The M2, kinda, but still feels like it was made for the back seat owner.
Personally, the CAPS thing doesn't sway me much. It's a nice thing to have, but at big cost, ongoing maintenance and useful load and the space to put it.
Totally love my 400. Not sure what I'd go into afterward.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna/Columbia 400 Posted: 06 Dec 2021, 03:34 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/18/12 Posts: 787 Post Likes: +399 Location: Europe
Aircraft: Aerostar 600A
|
|
Username Protected wrote: . The TTX (Columbia 400) is the finest single engine airplane I have ever owned. Bar none. +1 !
_________________ A&P/IA P35 Aerostar 600A
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna/Columbia 400 Posted: 06 Dec 2021, 08:53 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/17/10 Posts: 1611 Post Likes: +272 Location: Valparaiso, IN
Aircraft: Lancair Evolution
|
|
Username Protected wrote: When they certified it, they did so in the utility category, Lance says it was a huge mistake. The FAA made them over build the airplane. Lance says it’s 225% of what it needs to be! Dang thing weighs 2600lbs!!
It is hell for stout. That is absolutely correct on both counts and very often overlooked. I owned a Legacy Columbia 300 and it had decent useful. We actually flew it one year from Paris to Corfu, 4 POB + baggage, 1,000NM , non-stop, in exactly 6 hours . Had well over 1 hour reserve on landing. Best 4 place tourer I've ever owned ! Currently I'm re-building a Corvalis 400 that suffered a landing incident. The NW and right MW were ripped off, prop destroyed, but the fuselage structure didn't budge one iota . I have bought Cirrus that were completely destroyed fromm much less. What is the useful on the 300? Sounds like you had a lot of weight in there. Were you over the useful load? Sounds like the UL on these planes is much lower than what the plane will actually handle.
I'm assuming soft field landings are not an issue? Didn't know if the wheel skirts prevented that.
I also read that it's turbocharged. Is it TN or do you manage turbos? If you have to manage the turbos, how do you do that? All I see are throttle, prop and mixture levers.
|
|
Top |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024
|
|
|
|