The founder of Laminar Research (the company the invented to xplane flight sim) is and or was a huge proponent of the Columbia. He believed it was the best designed and built airplane in GA. He owned at least two of them. His Col 400 was in its t-hanger when it was destroyed by a micro-burst. He posted a picture of the aftermath but what he noted was the plane was pushed backward into a steel I-beam and the wing actually bent the I-beam. The wing has a small hole in the aileron but otherwise looked undamaged and was still attached to the plane and the internal structure was undamaged.

The link to pics

http://austinmeyer.com/2007/07/26/why-d ... -lancairs/

And the anemic useful load would have also needed attention. The side stick over a side yoke is terrific.

-David

Your numbers are pretty much spot on Tim. However, I think the useful load comparison to a similar vintage Bo, (say G36), is with the useful load of a NA Bonanza which is 1000# or so.

If you Turbonormalize the Bo (to more closely match the col4 which is turboed) then the Bo gets an additional 200ish lbs or so useful load. So the comparison of useful load would be more like 950ish for he COL4 VS. 1200ish for the G36. Someone please correct me if that’s wrong.

There is a TTX based at my home field that I just saw for the first time recently. It is an absolutely gorgeous airplane!

I tried to help the owner out in saving both avgas and Insurance money by offering to trade him my 172M for his TTX. I even offered to make the trade “even up” but he would not even consider it. You know, you try to help a guy out and sometimes they just don’t appreciate it...

What an ingrate...

I've flown 2 350s, the ES and ES-P. These are exceptional airplanes. I just cannot imagine a better 4 person fixed gear airplane than this series. We just bought an RDD build 2018 ES-P for my neighbor and I checked him out in it (not much to do as he owned a straight ES before that) but he's in love.

If Cessna made a TTX-P with a parachute (totally not needed but that's what people want) and could keep the price at $1 million, I think it would be a huge hit.

Don't forget about the Mako, you can still buy a brand new ES variety for $400K which is a lot better than a new Cirrus: https://lancair.com/mako/

The IV-P which I own and the ES have a lot in common. The IV has a no mans land between 80-130kts where its simply not going fast enough to get the wing on step. The ES doesn't have this and just wants to fly away similar to a Bonanza. Both airplanes could use a little more elevator in the flair but I've found lots of up trim helps. Once the IV is moving, it's ROC is probably 50% higher than the ES with the same engine the handling/wing loading is more jet like. If an engine quit, I'd much rather be in an ES than a IV.

I owned and flew a COL4 for six years until very recently. It is a great 4 place airplane for all the reasons mentioned. If you are interested in acquiring one, I would log into their user group - Like Beechtalk, a wealth of information and experience. In my view, upgrading avionics/autopilots etc., seemed difficult because of the small number of total aircraft and the economics for manufacturers. There is a class action suit against Textron in the works because of cracking around windows in most airplanes manufactured. Other than those small issues, the plane is an honest and economical performer that wasn't marketed properly in my humble opinion.

I was thinking more of the full fuel Max Payload – TTx 458 lbs vs. SR22T 548 lbs

Tim, you got me to relook at the load. If we equalize both aircraft to the SR22T's max fuel of 92 gallons:

Corvalis 350 638 lbs
TTx 518 lbs
SR22T 548 lbs

Pilots I've met love the 350, it seemed to have a better balance of performance factors.

My fixed gear 182P turbo Max Payload w/extended range 84 gallon tanks is 601lbs and has 166 TAS up high. Just in case anyone wanted to compare the TTx sports car to my 182 truck. :7)

-David

The first 50 300 models were 149k

I owned for two years , doubled my money.

The tooling was free on all items pre production.

GB

I happen to own that very airplane. N842X

Useful load is 1092lbs. While it can hold 98 gallons, it is a very fast efficient plane and I hardly ever fill the tanks. Just quoting “full fuel payload” is kinda dumb. Especially at 200kts and 15 gph. More sensible to quote full bladder payload.

I own a 400, have for 15 years, love it, also have a 300 I fly for work. We’ve had the 300 all over the world. Truly awesome airplanes to fly. The gross weight was based upon stall speed. The Faa wouldn’t grant an exemption for the 61 knot stall speed.

A guy named Harry Anderson flew his Columbia 300, N788W, first around the world, then he flew to South America and landed on Antarctica. That plane has been to all 7 continents.

He had to get a ferry tank permit. It was almost 500 pounds over the normal certificated max weight.

He blogged his trips:
http://www.travelark.org/traveller/harry4123

Here's a video of him doing the approach and landing at the Chilean military base on Antarctica:
[youtube]https://youtu.be/9ks8QlUHJpk[/youtube]


He turned his blog entries into a book - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01BG9NZUU/

I read it when preparing for my trip to South America. Well worth it. It includes the weight & balance calculations with the ferry tanks.

If the plane will do your mission, buy it. The 400 is an excellent performer, but I will admit it has a few unusual quirks that may take time to get used to. The side stick took me about a hundred hours to finally get comfortable with. That is because neutral is not straight up and down, it is canted. Every other stick I have flown is vertical at neutral. I found myself experiencing negative transfer. I have heard that those without extensive stick time do not have any problem. Another quirk is the switches. I can get used to turning on the oxygen with a soft key on the MFD, but when the FAA makes you booger up the panel with stickers instructing you where to look for switches you shouldn't have to hunt for, perhaps somebody didn't read the AC about human factors in panel design. Also, on some switches, up is on, others down is on. Some have forward on, some back is on. The purpose of the speed brakes is to keep the power on during descents to avoid rapid cylinder temp changes. The only time I have done 6,000 fpm descents was in the sim on the rapid decompression/emer descent drill. The placement of the speed brake switch on the 400 is less than optimal. I cannot tell you how many times I have noticed reduced climb rate on climb out only to discover the speed brakes extended. Somehow the switch in it's present location is easy to bump and the annunciator being white, does not attract attention. It should have been yellow with a chime, or a dedicated CAS box should have been used. It also took me some time to get used to an all electric airplane without a manual trim wheel. The air conditioner is the best in the world. The compartment under the back seat where all of the electronic boxes roast should have been ventilated and/or cooling fans installed. Control locks for mooring are not present, and I use the seat belt on the stick with a large chip clip on the rudder. The pedal strap didn't work for me. The TKS is also the best in the world. Ice does not accumulate on those surfaces at ALL. Don't worry about no nose wheel steering. You will never notice it. Even in strong crosswinds, it taxis like it has it. No plane is perfect, but if you can get used to some of the goofy stuff on this one, you will love it. I do.

HI Herb! A very interesting review. I am just celebrating my 3rd anniversary with my 400. I agree with none of the drawbacks you have listed, except that I do wish there was a manual trim wheel just in case the electric trim quits.

800 hours or so in stick (in the right hand) airplanes, and it took me 30 seconds to get used to this one on the left. It takes a while to learn the panel, but it is all logical. The stock control lock strap works just fine. The airplane does ignore crosswinds as you say. I like the location of the speed brake switch (next to the throttle).

My main complaint is the low useful load, and the lack of challenge in flying it. Is is too easy, and too capable. Makes me long for my skywagons.

HI Herb! A very interesting review. I am just celebrating my 3rd anniversary with my 400. I agree with none of the drawbacks you have listed, except that I do wish there was a manual trim wheel just in case the electric trim quits.

My main complaint is the low useful load, and the lack of challenge in flying it. Is is too easy, and too capable. Makes me long for my skywagons.