Peter wrote:
What is his OAT?
6F If I read well the bottom right corner of the AI part
The number on the Columbia are achievable – they are “marketing” numbers only in the sense that it is not something one would want to fly on a regular basis.
I did it once, just to see if it could, but didn’t like the hassle of the face masks. But it was interesting as several ATC units wondered what i was flying, given i was too slow to be a Turboprop and higher than they expected an unpressurized single.
Overall, i found the Columbia made the book numbers quite nicely, my typical cruise was 205-210kt at FL180 at 17-18 gph lean of peak, IIRC.
It does not sound much, but the speed difference between a 200kt-class aircraft and the 160kt Saratoga i flew before is large, especially in a headwind. The 10kt difference to a Cirrus is less significant.
And on the Lancair IV – it has a smaller, high speed wing, but essentually the fuselage of the Lancair ES or the Columbia.
Just shows how far up the drag curve we normally fly with a wing that is a compromise between cruise drag and stall speed.
Jacko wrote:
Option 4 is to extend my runway and then Tarmac it so that a “fast GA” can live with the Maule. I just might need some help getting that one past Mrs J…
You don’t need tarmac. If you own it, you can make sure it’s so good a jet could land there. Actually, IIRC there was a way to get a Mustang approved for unpaved strips.
Unfortunately, not everyone can set up a strip in their backyard. Slow or fast, either way you have the hassle of going to a larger airfield. Having a private strip is certainly on my bucket list. I might have to, however, settle for a helipad.
Jacko wrote:
Option 4 is to extend my runway and then Tarmac it so that a “fast GA” can live with the Maule.
I see your runway is about 450 m long? I’d think a M20J or the likes should be able to live with that or a minimal extension to maybe 500m. And that means 160 kts.
(Edit: just watched the movies on your site, well, maybe something with better prop clearance may be in order. The AN2 can do it 
in both regards, range and runway.
I had a quick look at the route you were talking about, that one is actually a huge detour over Dover, if you would consider crossing the North Sea from Hull to Den Helder, which is possible theoretically at <FL55 due to Airspace A of the Netherlands above that or IFR, then the route is considerably shorter, more like 450 NM. With a 160kt plane that is slightly below 3 hours flight time.
N0160F045 DCT DCR DCT UVAVU DCT OTR DCT ADGEG DCT HDR DCT UNEXO DCT EEL DCT DOBAK
Even if you go via Dover, 600 NM is around 4 hours, which translates into roughly 50 USG fuel required. Anyway, looks like a lovely airport you got there.
The discussion about “Book Numbers” is always interesting. Most people claim their planes don’t make book numbers. The question in my mind always is the same: Which numbers are we talking about.
The top speed numbers set forth by marketing are usually unrealistic for normal operation, as they have been achieved by test airplanes in test conditions. I read some of the conditions how Mooney made their 201/231/252 mph’s (mph alone is already marketing as it sounds better than kts due to the higher number…) and equally some of the more adventurous stories about the Bonanza and others.
But that aside, what is really important for any airplane are the POH figures. They need to correspond to reality, otherwise there is a problem. And here, I think many airplanes and their books are better than their reputation. Looking at the “normal” cruise figures e.t.c my experience so far is that most of these planes come close to what the POH sais you can do at 75/65/55%. If they are off more than a few knots, then they need to be investigated.
I found the largest deviations with fixed pitch props which are not “standardized” in the sense that you can have a climb prop (for things like paradrop airplanes or where climb performance is more important than cruise) where the airplane will be lacking in cruise speed, or you can have cruise props where climb is not important but cruise is. I read of PA28-140’s with the blog standard O320 (150hp) which do 140 kts with all sorts of speed mods, people who did that also had their prop reset to cruise and will obviously need more runway and climb distance. Another PA28-140 I tried out once climbed like a homesick angel but did a measly 90 kts TAS.
With CS props these deviations should not really happen. Ok, you can loos a few knots to antennas and not too good maintaned airframes (rigging, gear doors not closing properly, e.t.c.) but you should not really see huge deviations from POH performance.
The things I heard from the Columbia 400 here at ZRH were that it does what it’s advertized to do. I remember that when it first got into ZRH a few times ATC was quite surprised to have a SEP come at 250 kts speed during the initial approach phases. One of the guys flying it kept posting pictures of the performance they got, he has taken that Columbia all over Europe up to Spitsbergen and down to the Canaries and Madeira. He is pretty positive that it reaches the speeds laid down in the POH.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
The things I heard from the Columbia 400 here at ZRH were that it does what it’s advertized to do. I remember that when it first got into ZRH a few times ATC was quite surprised to have a SEP come at 250 kts speed during the initial approach phases. One of the guys flying it kept posting pictures of the performance they got, he has taken that Columbia all over Europe up to Spitsbergen and down to the Canaries and Madeira. He is pretty positive that it reaches the speeds laid down in the POH.
I can’t speak for the 400 but I can confirm that my Lancair Columbia 300 returns solid book numbers in every category, ie. climb vs weight & altitude and cruise tables, but as you suggest, that superlative Advertised Top Cruise Speed ( 191K TAS for the 300) is just a tad optimistic.
Most modern planes that don’t make POH figures is usually due to add-on options like deice equipment, air con, etc.
PS: I get a solid 170K TAS LOP @ 12.5Gal/H , 5,000’ to 9,000’
This is from a 13 page report that was done about SR22 speeds by a COPA member who is an engineer and works for Google. He made a survey of 160 SR22’s of all generations. My plane is about 2 knots slower below 10.000 ft, because of the 4-blade-prop, but reaches the same speeds above FL100.
I am surprised by the two knots speed penalty for the TKS. I would have thought (from anecdotal evidence) more like 5-6 knots.
I am also wondering how they found 68(!) non-TKS Cirri out there (and tested them in comparable conditions!). These are rare birds…
Also wonder why they flew the G5 at a higher fuel flow. Doesn’t make sense. Same engine. Anyway, pleased to read that the G2 is the real winner.
He flew 160 planes under carefully set up conditions, having calibrated the ASI etc on all?
And all had fuel totalisers?
