aart wrote:
But, there is no sense denying that the market has spoken, and the winner is Cirrus (in its class).
Absolutly !
And it is a very pertinent question to ask: “Why has the SR22 been such a success?” despite the fact that there is (was ?) a competitor that out-performs the Cirrus in many ways.
IMHO, no doubt about it: CAPS !
MFGZ has a Columbia 400, and it’s been a lossmaker since the beginning.
It’s been on N reg since they bought it. But the problem is, in a club setting, not many members have N papers, so not many people can fly it.
Now they want to convert it to HB reg, but that is a huge issue. First, due to the lack of DME, second, because they’ll have to disable deicing as that doesn’t seem approved in EASA land…
This is a posting I found at COPA, … citation:
The #‘s on the 350 are BS. I have owned a NA 22 and I now own a 2006 Columbia 350SL. My old SR22 would do 182 knots ROP and 172 knots LOP at 13 gph (assuming 9,500 MSL). This Columbia 350 goes 183 knots ROP and does 171 knots LOP at 13 gph. They are identical in speed and my Cirrus had TKS and this 350 doesn’t have anything on the wings.
Flying Magazine wrote that while you can cruise the TTx with 225 KTAS at FL200, it comes with a price: 24 Gallons per hour.
But none of the above can possibly be true, can it?
What type of Columbia do you have, Michael? Is it a 300? 350? Do you have some pictures?
I was only asking if the above can be true. I guess the fuel flow for 225 KTAS is correct, but i did not think that a 350 isn’t faster than a SR22 NA!
From a PLANE & PILOT pilot report:
The reality of turbocharged operation is that most pilots still prefer to fly in breathable air most of the time. A turbocharger provides the flexibility to ascend to the mid-teens or even the low-20s flight levels if there’s a need, but most pilots prefer the bottom 12,000 feet of sky. The Corvalis TT’s quoted max cruise speed of 235 knots is certainly an attractive number, but it’s only attainable at a fairly hostile 25,000 feet at high cruise, pouring almost 20 gph through the engine.
The good news is that you don’t have to fly high. If you elect to ascend to the middle sky, the Corvalis TT still offers good speed under friendlier conditions. In our case, we strapped on the masks and climbed to 17,500 feet, the highest VFR altitude, and watched the TAS climb to an eventual 213 knots,
(Any SR22T will go that fast in 17.500 ft)
What are your numbers, Michael?
I have the first generation NA 300, Google N26VV for pictures
Personally, I’m not very interested in either the Ttx 400 or the SR22 Turbo.
Believe me the 300 is rip-snorting fast and climbs like mad OR can be leaned out and cruise @ 165K TAS, @ 11.5gal/H for 1200NM, very , very close to the Mooney Screaming Eagle and a tad faster than the Ovation 3.
That said, I don’t think there’s a 20 knot spread against a similarly equipped SR22, probbly closer to 10 – 15 knots.
Peter wrote:
I would buy the one which looks “right” because the gear retracts
While I agree that a plane with wheels sticking out in cruise looks strange, the luxury of retracting gears costs about 10$ per flight hour in scheduled maintenance, some additional weight, and as the turbo 182 shows, it’s advantage diminishes with altitude.
So while “emotionally wrong”, it is a rationally defensible decision to stick a fixed gear to a turbo aircraft that can reasonably reach say FL180.
(by reasonably I mean with engine power left and with an oil consumption significantly less than the fuel consumption).
Since I usually fly fairly light, I usually see +2 – 3 knots better speeds.
Also, you’ll notice that they only LOP > than 65% power whilst I use WOT & LOP in just about all cruise settings.
My typical “economy” cruise is 174K Tas @ 12 Gal/H .
I see, thank you.
My SR22-G2 sometimes reaches 170 TAS at 12.5 GPH at 11.000 feet, on most days i see 165 KTAS at 12.5 GPH, so that’s about 1070 NM of range.
Do you think that’s really such a breathtaking difference?
(You table says that the Columbia 300 is about 5-6 knots faster than a SR22-G2)
FWIW
