25 Apr 2024, 13:24 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected |
Message |
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 400 Columbia, or TTX Posted: 02 Aug 2022, 15:36 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 07/29/16 Posts: 1619 Post Likes: +888 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 |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 400 Columbia, or TTX Posted: 02 Aug 2022, 18:49 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/03/12 Posts: 2126 Post Likes: +566 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 |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 400 Columbia, or TTX Posted: 03 Aug 2022, 00:30 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 07/29/16 Posts: 1619 Post Likes: +888 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 |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 400 Columbia, or TTX Posted: 03 Aug 2022, 02:30 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/18/12 Posts: 787 Post Likes: +399 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 |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 400 Columbia, or TTX Posted: 03 Aug 2022, 02:32 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/18/12 Posts: 787 Post Likes: +399 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 |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 400 Columbia, or TTX Posted: 04 Aug 2022, 02:26 |
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 400 Columbia, or TTX Posted: 04 Aug 2022, 03:11 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/30/09 Posts: 3355 Post Likes: +1964 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 |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 400 Columbia, or TTX Posted: 04 Aug 2022, 18:33 |
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 400 Columbia, or TTX Posted: 04 Aug 2022, 18:35 |
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 400 Columbia, or TTX Posted: 04 Aug 2022, 19:48 |
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 400 Columbia, or TTX Posted: 04 Aug 2022, 20:56 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/03/11 Posts: 1859 Post Likes: +1829
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 |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 400 Columbia, or TTX Posted: 04 Aug 2022, 21:53 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/28/13 Posts: 6053 Post Likes: +4019 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 |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 400 Columbia, or TTX Posted: 05 Aug 2022, 14:06 |
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
|