I would make a decision based on the general situation.
If I can descend to > 0C and there are no airspace or terrain issues and I am sure there is no convective wx ahead and the alternate situation is generous and in good wx, then I will descend and carry on. In some scenarios (OAT below say -25C) I will continue, subject to this being just a localised thing.
Plan C is to turn back but I have not yet had to do that.
See! I would do the same, but 2000 feet lower! So it IS how IFR works :-)
Flyer59 wrote:
Repeating it constantly doesn’t make it more convincing. The advantage the Columbia/TTx has over the Cirrus is mostly not relevant in daily life. Yes, it is a bit faster . but you can calculate yourself how much the time difference on a typical flight will be. My estimate for Munich-Berlin: Less than 10 minutes. The higher passenger comfort, the additional safety and the better visibility will make a much bigger difference.
Sure go ahead and discount the Performance Advatange of the Lancair/Ttx, and go on-and-on about your parachute, ad-nauseam, it’s all about choice !
Please tell me how much faster you will fly from Berlin to Cannes in the Columbia 300 than in the SR22
Flyer59 wrote:
Please tell me how much faster you will fly from Berlin to Cannes in the Columbia 300 than in the SR22
BTW, I said EVERY PERFORMANCE CATEGORY, not JUST cruise speed.
So let’s say that AvGas is more expensive in Berlin, no problem, I can up-load 110 Gallons from my base and won’t need to re-fuel.
Not interested in the 10 minute advantage on cruise speed ? NO problem, throttle back to 175K Tas @ 45L/H LOP and save some €€€.
That is great!
But it seems to me that most buyers base their decision on other facts, and i am one of those people.
How many Ttx were sold last year? 6?
Flyer59 wrote:
What wasn’t mentioned yet: Cirrus really develop their products and improve them all the time.
That’s not really that surprising since it’s a relatively new product and is basically maturing. The Cessna 172 on sale now is not the original either. Neither is the TTx. Or DA40/ 42. 
Could you elaborate on the advantages of Perspective?
Peter wrote:
There may be a way (I will ask David) but I don’t know it.
Thank you.
And since you got me going on the Lancair/Columbia/Ttx Vs Cirrus SR22 subject :
I’m finding out something that nobody talks about but is significant: The Columbia has a higher build quality, is more robust and much easier (read less expensive) to maintain than a SR22. This is based on my experience maintaining 4 Cirrus compared to my somewhat limited experience of owning/maintaining 1 Columbia 300.
Flyer59 wrote:
That is great!But it seems to me that most buyers base their decision on other facts, and i am one of those people.
How many Ttx were sold last year? 6?
Absolutly no doubt about it: CIRRUS MARKETING is far superior to Lancair/Ttx
But when you cut through the marketing hype and compare real performance numbers, the Performance leader is clear.
The Columbia has a higher build quality, is more robust and much easier (read less expensive) to maintain than a SR22.
I don’t think there’s much difference between a G5 Cirrus and a Ttx in quality.
Of course the maintenance of the SR22 is more expensive. More systems, CAPS. There can’t be much difference regarding the eninge though :-) But i have no idea about Columbia maintenance, of course.
Absolutly no doubt about it: CIRRUS MARKETING is far superior to Lancair/Ttx
That is not even true. The Lancair advertisements were always much more attractive than what Cirrus did. The graphics design on the Lancair AND TTx is nicer and more modern. Yes, Cirrus put a focus on the safety advantage of the CAPS system. Rightfully so IMHO.
Let me tell you (because Marketing is my job): MARKETING can never make up for the weakness of a product. Good marketing only works with a good product. See Cirrus, see iPhone.
Do you really think that Cessna has such a “bad marketing” they can only sell 6 (six!) airplanes?
