19 Apr 2024, 07:55 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected |
Message |
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 400 Columbia, or TTX Posted: 28 Jul 2022, 21:38 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 10/28/17 Posts: 88 Post Likes: +23 Location: MQJ
Aircraft: Bonanza P35
|
|
Didn’t the late Richard Collins lease or partner into a Columbia after his P210?
They really are a solid platform. Easy to fly/manage, few weak points, great speed/range, comfortable interior. Once flew one from PHX to BOS with one fuel stop.
Not as loadable or roomy as the Bo...but checks a lot of ‘go places’ boxes
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 400 Columbia, or TTX Posted: 29 Jul 2022, 00:29 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/02/15 Posts: 846 Post Likes: +593 Location: Austin, Texas and Argentina
Aircraft: L-39 Albatros
|
|
Username Protected wrote: How are they on “smooth” grass, 2700’ x 60’ @ 620’ asl, clean approaches… Re-sale can’t be that bad, there not giving them away. I was based at a 4000' maintained grass strip at 3700' MSL in Argentina for a few months, that was no problem (Columbia 400). I'm not sure about 2700' at 620' elevation - I'd expect it would be ok but of course I'd check the POH first. By "clean approaches" do you mean no flaps? I never tried that, but the grass helps slow you down after landing. During takeoff it works against you - it slows down your acceleration.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 400 Columbia, or TTX Posted: 29 Jul 2022, 02:42 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/05/10 Posts: 2968 Post Likes: +893 Location: Chatham, Canada (N7M5J7)
Aircraft: 1966 Bonanza V35
|
|
Username Protected wrote: How are they on “smooth” grass, 2700’ x 60’ @ 620’ asl, clean approaches… Re-sale can’t be that bad, there not giving them away. I was based at a 4000' maintained grass strip at 3700' MSL in Argentina for a few months, that was no problem (Columbia 400). I'm not sure about 2700' at 620' elevation - I'd expect it would be ok but of course I'd check the POH first. By "clean approaches" do you mean no flaps? I never tried that, but the grass helps slow you down after landing. During takeoff it works against you - it slows down your acceleration.
Thanks Chris, by clean approaches, I mean no obstacles for takeoff or landing. Just wondering how much runway used for take off at gross weight, on asphalt and grass? I’ve been spoiled, I’ve had my owned grass strip for 37 years, I couldn’t see myself having to deal with the politics at the local airport.
_________________ Gilles Bonanza V35 1946 Funk B85C “Only thing better than a Bonanza is 2 Bonanzas"
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 400 Columbia, or TTX Posted: 29 Jul 2022, 06:15 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/30/15 Posts: 1702 Post Likes: +1727 Location: Charlotte
Aircraft: Avanti-Citabria
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Does anyone have any experience with these planes. The looks, speed and technology have always interested me. I think I want one. Be still my beating heart…..every time I see another one even though I fly twice as fast now. A 2003 Columbia 350 was my first airplane. 11 years and ~1600 hours. Memory is getting a bit fuzzy on differences for 2003-2005 Avidyne birds vs 2006 and later Garmin Columbia vs made in Mexico disaster birds vs Later TTX models. 350 is simpler and cheaper to fly and operate obviously but in your shoes I would want the speed of turbo as well as the ice escaping power. 35” Manifold pressure on takeoff. With turbo at 16-19k feet you will be ~200 knots on 17ish gph LOP Keep pulse ox up and stay hydrated. Save higher altitudes for brief weather needs and short lived bolder pilots. If you can stroke the check there should be ZERO regrets. 2700 foot Grass runway. There is ~smooth and there is really smooth with short grass. I would not look forward to semi smooth full gross takeoff in a 350 with 2700 feet. Side stick will put a grin on your face within half a dozen landings. I gotta stop and get to work…. Last thing for now: Oregon aero seats….a must. I think they can still be added if you buy a bird without them.
_________________ I wanna go phastR.....and slowR
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 400 Columbia, or TTX Posted: 29 Jul 2022, 09:16 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 09/12/11 Posts: 675 Post Likes: +346 Location: Central California
Aircraft: Navajo /7GCBC/TTX
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Does anyone have any experience with these planes. The looks, speed and technology have always interested me. I think I want one. Be still my beating heart…..every time I see another one even though I fly twice as fast now. A 2003 Columbia 350 was my first airplane. 11 years and ~1600 hours. Memory is getting a bit fuzzy on differences for 2003-2005 Avidyne birds vs 2006 and later Garmin Columbia vs made in Mexico disaster birds vs Later TTX models. 350 is simpler and cheaper to fly and operate obviously but in your shoes I would want the speed of turbo as well as the ice escaping power. 35” Manifold pressure on takeoff. Great info thanks. With turbo at 16-19k feet you will be ~200 knots on 17ish gph LOP Keep pulse ox up and stay hydrated. Save higher altitudes for brief weather needs and short lived bolder pilots. If you can stroke the check there should be ZERO regrets. 2700 foot Grass runway. There is ~smooth and there is really smooth with short grass. I would not look forward to semi smooth full gross takeoff in a 350 with 2700 feet. Side stick will put a grin on your face within half a dozen landings. I gotta stop and get to work…. Last thing for now: Oregon aero seats….a must. I think they can still be added if you buy a bird without them.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 400 Columbia, or TTX Posted: 31 Jul 2022, 04:12 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/18/12 Posts: 787 Post Likes: +399 Location: Europe
Aircraft: Aerostar 600A
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Great birds. In the same vein, there are some nice lancair es for sale right now as well. The 300/350/400 Columbia/Corvalis/Ttx have very little in common with the Lancair ES . Sure they have the same look, but in fact the wing is not the same and believe it or not, the certified version will out perform the ES. Full disclosure: I owned a Columbia 300 and it was biggest bang per buck of ANY GA acft out there, period. I am fix'n up a 2009 (last year Bend OR made) 400 that is fully loaded, can't wait to get it flying !
_________________ A&P/IA P35 Aerostar 600A
Last edited on 31 Jul 2022, 06:09, edited 2 times in total.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 400 Columbia, or TTX Posted: 31 Jul 2022, 12:39 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 09/12/11 Posts: 675 Post Likes: +346 Location: Central California
Aircraft: Navajo /7GCBC/TTX
|
|
Can you add the Flightstream 510 to a G1000?
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 400 Columbia, or TTX Posted: 31 Jul 2022, 15:00 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 09/12/11 Posts: 675 Post Likes: +346 Location: Central California
Aircraft: Navajo /7GCBC/TTX
|
|
Username Protected wrote: They have rudder pedals in common...that's about it.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 400 Columbia, or TTX Posted: 31 Jul 2022, 19:02 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/02/15 Posts: 846 Post Likes: +593 Location: Austin, Texas and Argentina
Aircraft: L-39 Albatros
|
|
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.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 400 Columbia, or TTX Posted: 31 Jul 2022, 19:05 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/24/19 Posts: 398 Post Likes: +187 Location: Birmingham
Aircraft: Vans RV-6; Archer II
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Great birds. In the same vein, there are some nice lancair es for sale right now as well. The 300/350/400 Columbia/Corvalis/Ttx have very little in common with the Lancair ES . Sure they have the same look, but in fact the wing is not the same and believe it or not, the certified version will out perform the ES. Full disclosure: I owned a Columbia 300 and it was biggest bang per buck of ANY GA acft out there, period. I am fix'n up a 2009 (last year Bend OR made) 400 that is fully loaded, can't wait to get it flying !
Fair points. The performance in most cases is turbo vs non in the certified vs exp but I get the point. I believe we had a member here with a tn550 that I think would run with the 400s. I also still prefer the experimental for general ease and cost of ownership (assuming you build it correctly or properly vet it).
The esp is also a nice evolutionary step as well although the pressurization isn’t superb in most iterations. I think I’ve decided that doesn’t check enough boxes for me in my current long range missions but I still really look at them fondly.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 400 Columbia, or TTX Posted: 31 Jul 2022, 20:17 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 10/04/19 Posts: 653 Post Likes: +400 Company: Capella Partners Location: Alpine Airpark, 46U
Aircraft: P35, TW Pacer
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Great birds. In the same vein, there are some nice lancair es for sale right now as well. The 300/350/400 Columbia/Corvalis/Ttx have very little in common with the Lancair ES . Sure they have the same look, but in fact the wing is not the same and believe it or not, the certified version will out perform the ES. Full disclosure: I owned a Columbia 300 and it was biggest bang per buck of ANY GA acft out there, period. I am fix'n up a 2009 (last year Bend OR made) 400 that is fully loaded, can't wait to get it flying !
Michael, This is the beginning of something super useful.
Can you either quickly outline or point us towards a resource that outlines year ranges in relation to:
-model names (300,350,400, 400/sl/slx, ttx.....) -engine (turbo or non) -standard avionics (avidyne? locked in? G1000?) -Gotchas (non-FIKI, unique expenses ...) -Build location (Oregon? Mexico? ....)
Thanks if able! -J
_________________ PPL AMEL @jacksonholepilot on instagram firstlast@gmail.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 400 Columbia, or TTX Posted: 31 Jul 2022, 22:47 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/14/13 Posts: 6072 Post Likes: +4650
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Fair points. The performance in most cases is turbo vs non in the certified vs exp but I get the point. I believe we had a member here with a tn550 that I think would run with the 400s. I also still prefer the experimental for general ease and cost of ownership (assuming you build it correctly or properly vet it).
The esp is also a nice evolutionary step as well although the pressurization isn’t superb in most iterations. I think I’ve decided that doesn’t check enough boxes for me in my current long range missions but I still really look at them fondly. My TN ES would meet or exceed all 400/TTx numbers, which btw are all ROP numbers, and I flew LOP exclusively Everything they did to the 400/TTx for certification added weight and drag- as someone who put 1000+hrs on a ES, they are fantastic airplanes and never once did I find myself hostage to outdated avionics or inflated parts costs The ESP baggage is abysmal due to the pressure bulkhead, this was a non starter for me
|
|
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
|
|
|
|