Yikes, time for a BFR

Think I'm correct Brad - At 25000, TTX VNO ~ 137 kt IAS. That equates to about 204 kt TAS.

To get to a TAS of 235 kt, the indicated would be well above VNO at around 160 kt.

But you can exceed VNO in smooth air.....

Well, at least for me, the Columbia 400 won the contest.

I think if you compare my 2007 Columbia 400 to a 2007 SR22 Turbo G2, the Columbia is the better airplane. If you don't believe me, ask Austin Meyer.

A lot of stuff converged to bankrupt the Columbia company. Teething problems with the G1000 delayed a lot of sales. Then the hail storm that destroyed an enormous numbers of aircraft waiting delivery. Then the economy melted down.

Cessna bought them, while Cessna was going through its own identity crisis with Textron. 2008 Columbia models made after the buyout but still in Bend are often considered among the best examples made.

But it went downhill from there. A weird name change (Corvalis? which isn't spelled right nor where it is made). Moved production to different locations, making wings in Mexico. The debonding issue which shutdown all production. There were several years that Cessna could not produce a new Corvallis, at all. That tends to really kill sales.

Then the TTx, which Cessna spent a pile of money on recertifying and adding the G2000 and FIKI and restyling the cabin to be more in line with the biz-jets - yet addressed none of the things that people wanted, like gross weight or landing weight improvements. Or a BRS parachute.

You couldn't kill an aircraft program any better than Textron did.

Cirrus sells a slick little “BMW M3” of the air.
That’s the perception.

The Alfa Giulia Quadrafolio is way way cooler than an M3 but the smart money still gets the Bimmer.

Got to applaud that unconditionally.

T

No, I gotta disagree with your conclusion. I've certainly sustained well above 200 KTAS in cruise.

To reach the POH performance figure of 235KTAS under ISA standard condition (-35c, 29.92), you need 157.5kts KCAS (and about 160kt IAS) and that's indeed, right in the middle of the yellow arc. But the aircraft is utility category at all weights and CG loadings.

When I want to go fast, it is usually in the 200-215kt TAS LOP at 15-17gph, depending on altitude and air temperature, the higher and warmer the faster. I've seen 215 true at FL200 on a warm day on only 15gph many times. Does that easily actually.

Vno at FL200 is 157KCAS, which is 225kts TAS.

It will do that, if you don't mind burning the fuel to do it.




Here's the limitations section for my 400, for anyone curious.

All very good points! Great discussion.

It seems like a real pilot's airplane given the speeds, ability to slow down quickly in a terminal environment, A/C as standard, dual battery buses, utility category rating...

Maybe Piper could buy the design from Cessna. They seem to be the only large manufacturer still out there that's interested in single piston innovation?

Having flown both, IMO the Cirrus handles better than the TTx.

In the end, I would say its marketing. The Lancair Columbia/Cessna TTx (and all the other names) were never marketed as well as the Cirrus.

Also the Lancair Columbia had direct competition from the Lancair 4P.

I have also flown both. I would take the 400 over the Cirrus any day. The low speed handling of the 400 is far superior, and the control feel is also far better.

The 400 is a great single engine airplane. If only Cessna cared the least bit about it, the potential was huge. And wasted.

I guess the point I am making is that not too many piston S/E aircraft advertise a maximum cruising true airspeed that requires indicated speeds in excess of VNO to achieve them at high altitudes.

189 indicated with 243 TAS
yes, in the yellow arc
still around 30 knots from VNE

Just having a little phun that day including flying 31 knots backwards. Winds were 110 knots

The true side stick in Columbia is only barely behind my center stick in Citabria for flying feel and in the best position for a traveling airplane.

Love the Cirrus but the side spring loaded YOKE is nowhere close to the side stick in Columbia.

Story is when Columbia had the bankruptcy sale prospective buyers were not allowed to take notes. Dale Klapmeier (Cirrus founder) holed up in his hotel afterwards for hours writing down information which he then used to make Cirrus better. Good for Cirrus

G5 Cirrus is a major upgrade over G3 which was a stronger upgrade over the G2

I would however take the 2003 Columbia's doors and door seal over my 2014 G5's doors any
day.

Bottom line- Cirrus won by a landslide....to a quitter with no passion for their great product they bought for a song.

Don't forget about the chute.

I'm uncertain of why that should be of concern.

I'm uncertain of why that should be of concern.

I think there is some misunderstanding what protection Vno provides. In essence, operating below Vno provides a 50 foot per second (fps) gust protection (certification limit). It is probably a safe assumption that no one has ever encountered a 50 fps gust unless caught in the middle of a severe TRW.

Flying right up to Vne provides a gust protection of 35 fps and it is a linear decrease. Again, few if any on BT have ever experienced a 35 fps gust. It is significantly more severe than moderate chop.

While operating above Vno in anything but smooth air is not in accordance with limits, it is not the boogey man that some make it out to be.