banner
banner

28 Mar 2024, 19:18 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 64 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Cessna 400 Columbia, or TTX
PostPosted: 02 Aug 2022, 15:36 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 07/29/16
Posts: 1617
Post Likes: +883
Location: KMKE, WI, USA
Aircraft: Columbia 350
Username Protected wrote:
Everything they did to the 400/TTx for certification added weight and drag

Perhaps, but it is my understanding that the 300/350/400/Corvalis/TTX have much more docile low speed characteristics than their experimental Lancair cousins. The break at stall is almost non-existent. You can hold the elevator at the stop in the 350 and can barely even do a falling leaf because it just doesn't want to break.

I haven't flown the 400/TTX, but it is supposed to have even better slow speed characteristics because they added a ventral fin and enlarged elevator on the turbo models. It's about the only apparent difference between the two. For short field operation, the turbo models are preferred because of those changes.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna 400 Columbia, or TTX
PostPosted: 02 Aug 2022, 18:49 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 05/03/12
Posts: 2119
Post Likes: +557
Location: Wichita, KS
Aircraft: Mooney 201
Username Protected wrote:
Perhaps, but it is my understanding that the 300/350/400/Corvalis/TTX have much more docile low speed characteristics than their experimental Lancair cousins. The break at stall is almost non-existent. You can hold the elevator at the stop in the 350 and can barely even do a falling leaf because it just doesn't want to break.



Correct. Fun fact... the original "mission" for the Columbia team was to certify the ES and only make changes to make it better suited to factory production vs. home-building. A DER test pilot flew the factory ES to assess it against Part 23 standards, and it had so many deficiencies that it resulted in a clean-sheet redesign. The overall look and dimensions were preserved, though, but aerodynamically they are two very different airplanes. Even after the initial redesign, evolution continued during the flight test program as well to meet the Part 23 standards.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna 400 Columbia, or TTX
PostPosted: 03 Aug 2022, 00:30 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 07/29/16
Posts: 1617
Post Likes: +883
Location: KMKE, WI, USA
Aircraft: Columbia 350
Username Protected wrote:
-Gotchas (non-FIKI, unique expenses ...)

I think the biggest gotcha are G1000 airplanes that haven't had the WAAS upgrade. It is no longer available and there is no other upgrade path right now. This is a personal opinion. Some don't care about WAAS, but that would eliminate the airframe from my consideration.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna 400 Columbia, or TTX
PostPosted: 03 Aug 2022, 02:30 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/18/12
Posts: 784
Post Likes: +397
Location: Europe
Aircraft: Aerostar 600A
Username Protected wrote:
Perhaps, but it is my understanding that the 300/350/400/Corvalis/TTX have much more docile low speed characteristics than their experimental Lancair cousins. The break at stall is almost non-existent. You can hold the elevator at the stop in the 350 and can barely even do a falling leaf because it just doesn't want to break.



Correct. Fun fact... the original "mission" for the Columbia team was to certify the ES and only make changes to make it better suited to factory production vs. home-building. A DER test pilot flew the factory ES to assess it against Part 23 standards, and it had so many deficiencies that it resulted in a clean-sheet redesign. The overall look and dimensions were preserved, though, but aerodynamically they are two very different airplanes. Even after the initial redesign, evolution continued during the flight test program as well to meet the Part 23 standards.


Nailed it !

And then the $$$$ started going out the door ....
_________________
A&P/IA
P35
Aerostar 600A


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna 400 Columbia, or TTX
PostPosted: 03 Aug 2022, 02:32 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/18/12
Posts: 784
Post Likes: +397
Location: Europe
Aircraft: Aerostar 600A
Username Protected wrote:
-Gotchas (non-FIKI, unique expenses ...)

I think the biggest gotcha are G1000 airplanes that haven't had the WAAS upgrade. It is no longer available and there is no other upgrade path right now. This is a personal opinion. Some don't care about WAAS, but that would eliminate the airframe from my consideration.


I have sold "used" WAAS units to up-grade the non-WAAS planes, so it can be fixed.
_________________
A&P/IA
P35
Aerostar 600A


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna 400 Columbia, or TTX
PostPosted: 04 Aug 2022, 02:26 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/23/14
Posts: 28
Post Likes: +16
I owned a 2014 TTX and loved it. Fantastic plane. PM me if you want to talk.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna 400 Columbia, or TTX
PostPosted: 04 Aug 2022, 03:11 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/30/09
Posts: 3343
Post Likes: +1948
Location: $ilicon Vall€y
Aircraft: Columbia 400
I own a 2007 Columbia 400, non-WAAS G1000 and one of the very rare ones without air conditioning. I've had it for nearly 6 years.

I'd like to have WAAS and I should have bought the $40k kit early on when it was still available. But on the other hand, lacking it has not hindered me in any way in reality.

Someday, there will be a replacement for these older planes. Just give it time.

I put GTX335 into it for ADSB compliance.

The lack of air conditioning also - hasn't been that big of deal either. I have a second home in Las Vegas, and solved that with a B-Kool that I use in the hot season for ground ops. Not having it built in saves 40lbs of empty weight and opens up a good bit more of the baggage area. Most of the year, I don't need the B-Kool at all.

Have not had too much issue with it. Starter adapter was the most expensive. Replacing the pilot side inflatable door seal was the second most. Third most was an exhaust elbow and turbo overhauls.

It is currently in shop waiting completion of the 5 year hydrotest of the O2 cylinders and the speed brakes to come back from Precise Flight.

Typical mission is 350nm, flying in the mid-teens with about 190-200kt tas, depending on how much gas I want to burn. Always LOP and conservative power settings. The TSIO550-C is the same engine as the TSIO550A, just derated by 50hp down to 310hp. Cruise is allowed up to 83% power (magically the same as the higher-rated engine's 75%). LOP performance tables right there in the POH from the factory. It is a very slippery airplane and goes fast.

You fly it kind of like a jet. Set everything to full throttle/RPM/Mixture on the runway, leave it there until you reach cruise, even if that's FL250. Level off and set up cruise power LOP.

Built in O2. At those altitudes, basically have the whole sky to yourself. I've been cleared direct from Henderson, NV to West Texas more than once. I haven't broke 300kts of groundspeed yet, but I've been fairly close.

Handling is pretty docile, easy to land, stalls are a non-event. I like the sidesticks better than the side-yokes on the Cirrus. Hard to explain, but once you feel the difference, you'll know what I mean.

All in all, great ride. Comfortable for long flights. It has the Oregon Aero seats which are very comfortable. (I think became standard on the G1000 planes 2006 and later, optional on the earler Avidyne planes).

There is a really great type club that offers shared knowledge and recurrent training program events. The model has a good safety record and my insurance rates are very reasonable.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna 400 Columbia, or TTX
PostPosted: 04 Aug 2022, 17:16 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 03/03/11
Posts: 1845
Post Likes: +1819
Aircraft: Piaggio Avanti
What’s the cabin like for someone who is 6’4” and maybe 330. Wound he be able to fit?

Buddy looking at cirrus but I think these are way better deal.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna 400 Columbia, or TTX
PostPosted: 04 Aug 2022, 18:33 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 07/15/17
Posts: 44
Post Likes: +9
Username Protected wrote:
What’s the cabin like for someone who is 6’4” and maybe 330. Wound he be able to fit?

Buddy looking at cirrus but I think these are way better deal.


Would he fit? Yes.
Would he be happy fitting? No. I'm a couple inches shorter and over 100lbs lighter and fly with the seat all the way to the rear and the tilt such that no one could sit behind me if they had legs.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna 400 Columbia, or TTX
PostPosted: 04 Aug 2022, 18:35 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 07/15/17
Posts: 44
Post Likes: +9
Username Protected wrote:
Can you add the Flightstream 510 to a G1000?


I don't think so. I don't remember the reason, whether it's because the G1000 software hasn't been updated (blame Cessna), or if you need a G1000 NXi.


No. Huge fight with Textron over avionics upgrades, which they refuse to do. Garmin sold the G1000/2000 to textron, who has to approve every upgrade. They've orphaned the fleet, and short of kidnapping the ceo's daughter IDK what will get them to change their tune.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna 400 Columbia, or TTX
PostPosted: 04 Aug 2022, 19:48 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 05/02/15
Posts: 846
Post Likes: +593
Location: Austin, Texas and Argentina
Aircraft: L-39 Albatros
Username Protected wrote:
They've orphaned the fleet, and short of kidnapping the ceo's daughter IDK what will get them to change their tune.


That wouldn't work - the CEO would do a cost/benefit analysis and ditch the daughter.

Now if all the owners met up at the Textron tent at Oshkosh with protest signs, that might get some attention. But it still probably wouldn't work.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna 400 Columbia, or TTX
PostPosted: 04 Aug 2022, 20:56 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 03/03/11
Posts: 1845
Post Likes: +1819
Aircraft: Piaggio Avanti
Username Protected wrote:
What’s the cabin like for someone who is 6’4” and maybe 330. Wound he be able to fit?

Buddy looking at cirrus but I think these are way better deal.


Would he fit? Yes.
Would he be happy fitting? No. I'm a couple inches shorter and over 100lbs lighter and fly with the seat all the way to the rear and the tilt such that no one could sit behind me if they had legs.


I am not sure he will be ‘happy’ in any GA plane!

Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna 400 Columbia, or TTX
PostPosted: 04 Aug 2022, 21:53 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/28/13
Posts: 6037
Post Likes: +3998
Location: Indiana
Aircraft: C195, D17S, M20TN
Username Protected wrote:
They've orphaned the fleet, and short of kidnapping the ceo's daughter IDK what will get them to change their tune.


That wouldn't work - the CEO would do a cost/benefit analysis and ditch the daughter.

Now if all the owners met up at the Textron tent at Oshkosh with protest signs, that might get some attention. But it still probably wouldn't work.



Chris,
There is No One at the Cessna tents to even notice anyone that picketed. Customers or Ee’s. Sad.
_________________
Chuck
KEVV


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna 400 Columbia, or TTX
PostPosted: 05 Aug 2022, 13:51 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/30/09
Posts: 3343
Post Likes: +1948
Location: $ilicon Vall€y
Aircraft: Columbia 400
I’m 6’2” and find the plane comfortable for long flights.

The Oregon Aero seats, as mine and I think all G1000 and later planes come with, have more adjustability and better back support than the “sport” seats that were standard on earlier production. The seat bottom cushion comes in thin, standard and thick sizes. I have the standard thickness.

My friend is 6’ 5” and seems comfortable enough to fly with.

I find the SR22 seat much harder and less comfortable. Flew back with a friend in a brand new one 2 years ago from the factory delivery center.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna 400 Columbia, or TTX
PostPosted: 05 Aug 2022, 14:06 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 05/02/15
Posts: 846
Post Likes: +593
Location: Austin, Texas and Argentina
Aircraft: L-39 Albatros
I'm 6'2, fly a 2008 Columbia 400, and also I have plenty of room. I even had room to wear a flight helmet to test it out, so that probably adds 2 inches above my head. Here's my goofing around with that:

Attachment:
flighthelmet_col400.jpg


If you want to see me actually putting it on and wearing it, here's the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6luJpshTjbI - it should give you an idea of how much room I had. Bottom line, I think you need to sit in the cockpit and try it out.


Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 64 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next




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

Jump to:  

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

.ei-85x150.jpg.
.pure-medical-85x150.png.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.lucysaviation-85x50.png.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.Marsh.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.AAI.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.daytona.jpg.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.aircraftferry-85x50.jpg.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.midwest2.jpg.
.Latitude.jpg.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.aeroled-85x50-2022-12-06.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.one-mile-up-85x100.png.