BeechTalk - BT - Cessna Corvalis TTx

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Mar 2013, 08:52

First flew this week:

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/a ... tml#208283

Comment: FAST! But not much payload.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Mar 2013, 09:05

235 knots @25K'

Needs to be clarified because that's an altitude nobody will probably ever go in this thing.

At 17K' it gets 213TAS.

My TN BO gets 200TAS at 17K'. Soooooooooo...... I'd rather have a TN BO than this little thing.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Mar 2013, 09:36

Here's what I'd do with the $750k for a new Corvalis. I'd keep my Bo, buy a better house, and save the rest for my future kids to squander!

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Mar 2013, 10:13

Max landing weight is 180 lbs. less than max takeoff weight. That seems strange for a single engine piston, does it not? 180 lbs of fuel is 30 gallons, which could be a lot to have to burn off.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Mar 2013, 10:47

Username Protected wrote:

Max landing weight is 180 lbs. less than max takeoff weight. That seems strange for a single engine piston, does it not? 180 lbs of fuel is 30 gallons, which could be a lot to have to burn off.

Cessna like Cirrus is positioning the Corvalis as a plane where you do not always fill the tanks. If you take the Cirrus training and scenarios presented they want you to fly with a healthy reserve versus always taking off with full tanks. So if you are going on a long trip, burning 30 GAL is not a big deal. Short trip, tanks are not full and you are below MTOW.
The Cessna salesman made this same case to me two years ago.

Tim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Mar 2013, 11:06

I would take it.

Now they need to catch up to Cirrus with FIKI and a decent useful load. Given the amount of excess power they have and the lack of a parachute, they should be able to do better on payload. I wonder if the gear is the weak link, the landing weight restriction would suggesst so.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Mar 2013, 11:53

I have flown the prior generation Corvalis and it is an awesome aircraft. Sadly to say Cirrus is just running away with the game. The useful load increase Cirrus just came out with is what I'm referring to, Cessna is always playing catchup in this space.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Mar 2013, 13:11

Username Protected wrote:

I would take it.

Now they need to catch up to Cirrus with FIKI and a decent useful load. Given the amount of excess power they have and the lack of a parachute, they should be able to do better on payload. I wonder if the gear is the weak link, the landing weight restriction would suggesst so.

Florian,
If I understand Jason's comments above, this thing is only 13 kts faster at 17,000' than your turbo Bo. Why would you want such a small fuselage/interior compared to what you have in a A36? :shrug:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Mar 2013, 13:14

Bingo....similar question compared with the V35s TC/TN versions.

We can see 195-200kts true at those altitutes... :dancing:

.

Username Protected wrote:

I would take it.

Now they need to catch up to Cirrus with FIKI and a decent useful load. Given the amount of excess power they have and the lack of a parachute, they should be able to do better on payload. I wonder if the gear is the weak link, the landing weight restriction would suggesst so.

Florian,
If I understand Jason's comments above, this thing is only 13 kts faster at 17,000' than your turbo Bo. Why would you want such a small fuselage/interior compared to what you have in a A36? :shrug:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Mar 2013, 13:34

Username Protected wrote:

Cessna like Cirrus is positioning the Corvalis as a plane where you do not always fill the tanks. If you take the Cirrus training and scenarios presented they want you to fly with a healthy reserve versus always taking off with full tanks. So if you are going on a long trip, burning 30 GAL is not a big deal. Short trip, tanks are not full and you are below MTOW.
The Cessna salesman made this same case to me two years ago.

That sounds good in theory, but I am not sure it's really practical. How do you know how much fuel is in the tank? Either you need to keep track of fuel burn for each tank since last fueling, or you need really accurate fuel gages, or you need to be able to dip the tank. This certainly does not work well in a Bo.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Mar 2013, 14:09

Username Protected wrote:

Florian,
If I understand Jason's comments above, this thing is only 13 kts faster at 17,000' than your turbo Bo. Why would you want such a small fuselage/interior compared to what you have in a A36? :shrug:

Folks try flap gap seals, waxing the leading edges, modifying cowlings, new props, bigger engines, etc., all to just try to squeeze a few extra knots out of their plane.

13 knots is a lot.

This is a plane for someone that wants a Porsche 911, not for someone who wants a Ford Escort or a Chevy Suburban.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Mar 2013, 14:31

Username Protected wrote:

That sounds good in theory, but I am not sure it's really practical. How do you know how much fuel is in the tank? Either you need to keep track of fuel burn for each tank since last fueling, or you need really accurate fuel gages, or you need to be able to dip the tank. This certainly does not work well in a Bo.

Fuel totalizer. I'm sure the G2000 has that functionality.