Sounds like several SR20 owners have flown the Lancair Columbia.
I am really curious to find out how they compare. I understand the ergonomics of the SR20 are (much?) better, but handling, performance, etc?
Thanks
Columbia versus the SR20
On June 20th I had a chance to visit with Lancair and fly the Columbia 300 (prototype). These are some of my observations.
I went up with Mike Schrader, Natl Sales Mgr for Lancair and who is located in Bend, Oregon. The plane we flew was the prototype not a certified model. Mike was quick to point out that this plane was not as fast as customer planes due to some imperfections in the way that the doors close, the baggage compartment seals, etc. Clearly, I can understand that customer planes could be different, but was curious about his need to jump into speed issues before we even “saddled up”. We spent some time orientating me as to the various locations of instruments and avionics. The plane had an Apollo GPS and a King KX155 for nav coms. Mike indicated that he prefers to use the KX155 for comm versus the Apollo Â… I can understand that. There was not an automatic tune feature on this plane as there is on the Cirrus with the Garmin GNS430 Â… a little inconvenient perhaps, but not a big deal.
The panel had a Avidyne MFD and could display VFR sectionals and WAC charts as well as IFR low altitude enroute routes. The display was very good in high ambient light situations and I enjoyed seeing the Sectionals and WAC charts. The Columbia display was brighter and more colorful than the ARNAV display. However, the ARNAV has the “block” that displays helpful information such as Waypoint, Ground Speed, Desired Track, Actual Track, Bearing to the waypoint, and ETE. That information is NOT available on the prototype. Mike indicated that Lancair is working toward installing their “Highway in the Sky” (HITS) program in their planes. There was an avionics person there installing the system in the mock up Â… presumably for OSH.
The instrument layout was different than the SR20 in some respects. The engine gauges for the SR20 are on the right. In the Columbia there are generally on the left including the fuel flow and fuel gauges for the left and right tanks. Not better or worse just different. The fuel tank lever to switch tanks is on the end of the center console arm rest in the 300, but located on the center console in the SR20. I like the SR20s arrangement better in that you look in one place to see fuel levels and to switch tanks.
The 300 has better cabin environmental controls than the SR20. The 300 even has a fan to force air flow while on the ground. The heater controls are easier to adjust than the “flip levers” on the SR20. Cirrus could learn something here.
The doors on the 300 are gull wing and make entry and exit for big people difficult. The modified gull wing that Cirrus uses is, in my opinion, much better. Tall people cannot stand on the wing with the door open without having to maneuver away from the open door.
Once inside I noticed that the 300 does not have the same headroom that the SR20 has. I kept hitting my head on the ceiling. Irritating, but I can duck! I note also that the bottom of the door opening is much higher from the seat level on the 300, which also contributes to the difficulty in getting in and out of the 300. Cirrus is better in this department.
Once orientated, I fired up. It was a relatively easy start. Taxing is about the same in the 300 as it is in the SR20. If anything I felt that the brakes on the 300 were “heavy duty”. I find it difficult to explain what I mean by heavy duty other than to say that the brakes felt more responsive to a lighter touch than on the SR20. I think maybe it was just a difference in “feel” between the two planes. The other thing that I noticed is that there appears to be a closet “feel” to the back seats. Because there is not as much light in and around the back seats, I would expect that back seat passengers are going to feel less comfortable than they would in the back seats of the SR20 where there is more light and visibility.
The run up was about the same except for the need to exercise the prop separately on the 300. No big deal, again just different.
When we took the runway and applied full power, there definitely is a push back in the seat after all 300 horse should buy you something! Take off roll was smooth and the controls responsive. We rotated about 70 KIAS as I recall and were airborne in a flash. The vertical speed indicator was removed in favor of a G-meter so I can not tell you the VSI, but we was going up big time!
Having just fought headwinds and temps in the SR20 the day before, I was focused on the climb rate and engine cooling. The 300 climbs extremely well and doesn’t even break a “sweat”. CHT was under 350 and Oil temp was about 180 (as I recall). In the SR20 my temps would have been much higher Â… CHTs about 400 and Oil temps about 200+. I was impressed. It would appear that Lancair knows how to cool engines.
I am now sitting in DLH and having just spend some time going over the cooling issues with the Mike Busch (head of Customer Service) there are some things that apparently need some tweaking on my engine. Timing was off slightly. The fuel flow was a little low at max power and Cirrus may make some minor baffling changes too. The bottom line is these changes may have some positive impact on keeping the engine a little cooler. However, the fact remains that the Cirrus SR20 is not as good in cooling the engine as the 300.
We leveled off and watched the speed climb. In level cruise (25" & 2,500 RPM) we were doing 170 to 175 knots (KTAS Â… adjusted for altitude and temp). Clearly, the 300 is faster, but so is its ability to eat fuel. I didn’t observe the fuel flow closely enough to give you an accurate reading.
Landing was interesting in that we slowed to 129 KIAS, lowered on notch of flaps (there are two notches just like the SR20), slowed to 119 KIAS and dropped the final notch. Kept the AS at 105 KIAS and were descending at nearly 2,500 FPM! The attitude was nearly a 30 to 40 degree angle of descent! We slowed to about 80 KIAS with full flaps on landing. Landing is very similar to the SR20 except the 300’s landing gear is much more narrow than the SR20. I would think the SR20 would provide a much more stable platform on the ground than the 300.
Bottom line for me Â… it’s an SR20 decision all the way. The biggest factor is comfort and visibility.
Thanks, Walt! I’ve been looking forward to your report. I flew the 300 at Sun ‘n’ Fun 1999. I had the similar experience on putting in flaps to decend…
We were cruising at about 5,500’, took the a/c through some manuvers (which it handled well) and turned back to the airport. Of course, my normal flights are about 125 knots in a Cherokee so I was pretty amazed when the airport was only 8-10 miles ahead when I was looking out on the horizon for it.
Just as I was ready to circle to drop into the pattern, the Lancair test pilot (Sam Houston) took it, slowed, and dropped both notches of flaps. I couldn’t believe the decent rate! We’re pointed down, looking right at the runway and Sam is completely confident that we’ll make it in. This aspect of the 300 is amazing.
Having turned over money but not flown the Cirrus, I’m looking forward to a test flight next month. Very confident that I have made the right choice.
btw, interesting that Lancair would mention the flying speeds on production models being higher. No offense to Lancair, but as far as I know they have only delivered one 300!
Walt, thank you very much for your observations.
A few additional questions:
1. Would the Columbia be too tight for someone 6'2" and 210lbs? Or differently, is the SR20 much more comfortable?
2. Would the SR22's estimated performance be similar to the Columbia? And would the SR22 be at that point the easy choice?
Thanks,
Columbia versus the SR20
On June 20th I had a chance to visit with Lancair and fly the Columbia 300 (prototype). These are some of my observations.
I went up with Mike Schrader, Natl Sales Mgr for Lancair and who is located in Bend, Oregon. The plane we flew was the prototype not a certified model. Mike was quick to point out that this plane was not as fast as customer planes due to some imperfections in the way that the doors close, the baggage compartment seals, etc. Clearly, I can understand that customer planes could be different, but was curious about his need to jump into speed issues before we even “saddled up”. We spent some time orientating me as to the various locations of instruments and avionics. The plane had an Apollo GPS and a King KX155 for nav coms. Mike indicated that he prefers to use the KX155 for comm versus the Apollo Â… I can understand that. There was not an automatic tune feature on this plane as there is on the Cirrus with the Garmin GNS430 Â… a little inconvenient perhaps, but not a big deal.
The panel had a Avidyne MFD and could display VFR sectionals and WAC charts as well as IFR low altitude enroute routes. The display was very good in high ambient light situations and I enjoyed seeing the Sectionals and WAC charts. The Columbia display was brighter and more colorful than the ARNAV display. However, the ARNAV has the “block” that displays helpful information such as Waypoint, Ground Speed, Desired Track, Actual Track, Bearing to the waypoint, and ETE. That information is NOT available on the prototype. Mike indicated that Lancair is working toward installing their “Highway in the Sky” (HITS) program in their planes. There was an avionics person there installing the system in the mock up Â… presumably for OSH.
The instrument layout was different than the SR20 in some respects. The engine gauges for the SR20 are on the right. In the Columbia there are generally on the left including the fuel flow and fuel gauges for the left and right tanks. Not better or worse just different. The fuel tank lever to switch tanks is on the end of the center console arm rest in the 300, but located on the center console in the SR20. I like the SR20s arrangement better in that you look in one place to see fuel levels and to switch tanks.
The 300 has better cabin environmental controls than the SR20. The 300 even has a fan to force air flow while on the ground. The heater controls are easier to adjust than the “flip levers” on the SR20. Cirrus could learn something here.
The doors on the 300 are gull wing and make entry and exit for big people difficult. The modified gull wing that Cirrus uses is, in my opinion, much better. Tall people cannot stand on the wing with the door open without having to maneuver away from the open door.
Once inside I noticed that the 300 does not have the same headroom that the SR20 has. I kept hitting my head on the ceiling. Irritating, but I can duck! I note also that the bottom of the door opening is much higher from the seat level on the 300, which also contributes to the difficulty in getting in and out of the 300. Cirrus is better in this department.
Once orientated, I fired up. It was a relatively easy start. Taxing is about the same in the 300 as it is in the SR20. If anything I felt that the brakes on the 300 were “heavy duty”. I find it difficult to explain what I mean by heavy duty other than to say that the brakes felt more responsive to a lighter touch than on the SR20. I think maybe it was just a difference in “feel” between the two planes. The other thing that I noticed is that there appears to be a closet “feel” to the back seats. Because there is not as much light in and around the back seats, I would expect that back seat passengers are going to feel less comfortable than they would in the back seats of the SR20 where there is more light and visibility.
The run up was about the same except for the need to exercise the prop separately on the 300. No big deal, again just different.
When we took the runway and applied full power, there definitely is a push back in the seat after all 300 horse should buy you something! Take off roll was smooth and the controls responsive. We rotated about 70 KIAS as I recall and were airborne in a flash. The vertical speed indicator was removed in favor of a G-meter so I can not tell you the VSI, but we was going up big time!
Having just fought headwinds and temps in the SR20 the day before, I was focused on the climb rate and engine cooling. The 300 climbs extremely well and doesn’t even break a “sweat”. CHT was under 350 and Oil temp was about 180 (as I recall). In the SR20 my temps would have been much higher Â… CHTs about 400 and Oil temps about 200+. I was impressed. It would appear that Lancair knows how to cool engines.
I am now sitting in DLH and having just spend some time going over the cooling issues with the Mike Busch (head of Customer Service) there are some things that apparently need some tweaking on my engine. Timing was off slightly. The fuel flow was a little low at max power and Cirrus may make some minor baffling changes too. The bottom line is these changes may have some positive impact on keeping the engine a little cooler. However, the fact remains that the Cirrus SR20 is not as good in cooling the engine as the 300.
We leveled off and watched the speed climb. In level cruise (25" & 2,500 RPM) we were doing 170 to 175 knots (KTAS Â… adjusted for altitude and temp). Clearly, the 300 is faster, but so is its ability to eat fuel. I didn’t observe the fuel flow closely enough to give you an accurate reading.
Landing was interesting in that we slowed to 129 KIAS, lowered on notch of flaps (there are two notches just like the SR20), slowed to 119 KIAS and dropped the final notch. Kept the AS at 105 KIAS and were descending at nearly 2,500 FPM! The attitude was nearly a 30 to 40 degree angle of descent! We slowed to about 80 KIAS with full flaps on landing. Landing is very similar to the SR20 except the 300’s landing gear is much more narrow than the SR20. I would think the SR20 would provide a much more stable platform on the ground than the 300.
Bottom line for me Â… it’s an SR20 decision all the way. The biggest factor is comfort and visibility.
Bottom line for me Â… it’s an SR20 decision all the way. The biggest factor is comfort and visibility.
Second opinion anyone…? I’ll be in Bend on Friday to fly the 300, and am going up in an SR20 over the weekend (been in neither in the air – only on the ground) so I’ll try to give them a fair shake. Any questions anyone wants me to ask or manuevers to try?
Columbia versus the SR20
Walt,
Did you have any personal preference on the SR20 side yoke versus the Columbia side Stick?
How about stick feel? I was just wondering how the SR20 stiff spring system feels compared to the pushrod/trim tabs on the Columbia.
Or is it just a no brainer and both are intuitive and work fine?
Thanks!
Walt, thank you very much for your observations.
A few additional questions:
- Would the Columbia be too tight for someone 6’2" and 210lbs? Or differently, is the SR20 much more comfortable?
If you are agile it could work; however, it is still a chore to get in and out. The door sill is higher than on the Cirrus so you sit down inside the plane. The door sill is a bit low for an arm rest, but that is the general feel you get versus the SR20. If your legs bend easily it could work. I have an artificial right knee that doesn’t bend more than about 115 degrees. Hope that helps.
- Would the SR22’s estimated performance be similar to the Columbia? And would the SR22 be at that point the easy choice?
That is hard to say. Cirrus is clearly working the SR22 issue and I am not sure they even have correctly calibrated the speeds yet. I’m sure they have calculated the airspeeds, but haven’t demonstrated them yet. Besides Cirrus is being very quiet about expected speeds. My guess is that they have learned from past experience to “manage customer expectations”. Don’t promise more than you can deliver.
Thanks,
Columbia versus the SR20
On June 20th I had a chance to visit with Lancair and fly the Columbia 300 (prototype). These are some of my observations.
I went up with Mike Schrader, Natl Sales Mgr for Lancair and who is located in Bend, Oregon. The plane we flew was the prototype not a certified model. Mike was quick to point out that this plane was not as fast as customer planes due to some imperfections in the way that the doors close, the baggage compartment seals, etc. Clearly, I can understand that customer planes could be different, but was curious about his need to jump into speed issues before we even “saddled up”. We spent some time orientating me as to the various locations of instruments and avionics. The plane had an Apollo GPS and a King KX155 for nav coms. Mike indicated that he prefers to use the KX155 for comm versus the Apollo Â… I can understand that. There was not an automatic tune feature on this plane as there is on the Cirrus with the Garmin GNS430 Â… a little inconvenient perhaps, but not a big deal.
The panel had a Avidyne MFD and could display VFR sectionals and WAC charts as well as IFR low altitude enroute routes. The display was very good in high ambient light situations and I enjoyed seeing the Sectionals and WAC charts. The Columbia display was brighter and more colorful than the ARNAV display. However, the ARNAV has the “block” that displays helpful information such as Waypoint, Ground Speed, Desired Track, Actual Track, Bearing to the waypoint, and ETE. That information is NOT available on the prototype. Mike indicated that Lancair is working toward installing their “Highway in the Sky” (HITS) program in their planes. There was an avionics person there installing the system in the mock up Â… presumably for OSH.
The instrument layout was different than the SR20 in some respects. The engine gauges for the SR20 are on the right. In the Columbia there are generally on the left including the fuel flow and fuel gauges for the left and right tanks. Not better or worse just different. The fuel tank lever to switch tanks is on the end of the center console arm rest in the 300, but located on the center console in the SR20. I like the SR20s arrangement better in that you look in one place to see fuel levels and to switch tanks.
The 300 has better cabin environmental controls than the SR20. The 300 even has a fan to force air flow while on the ground. The heater controls are easier to adjust than the “flip levers” on the SR20. Cirrus could learn something here.
The doors on the 300 are gull wing and make entry and exit for big people difficult. The modified gull wing that Cirrus uses is, in my opinion, much better. Tall people cannot stand on the wing with the door open without having to maneuver away from the open door.
Once inside I noticed that the 300 does not have the same headroom that the SR20 has. I kept hitting my head on the ceiling. Irritating, but I can duck! I note also that the bottom of the door opening is much higher from the seat level on the 300, which also contributes to the difficulty in getting in and out of the 300. Cirrus is better in this department.
Once orientated, I fired up. It was a relatively easy start. Taxing is about the same in the 300 as it is in the SR20. If anything I felt that the brakes on the 300 were “heavy duty”. I find it difficult to explain what I mean by heavy duty other than to say that the brakes felt more responsive to a lighter touch than on the SR20. I think maybe it was just a difference in “feel” between the two planes. The other thing that I noticed is that there appears to be a closet “feel” to the back seats. Because there is not as much light in and around the back seats, I would expect that back seat passengers are going to feel less comfortable than they would in the back seats of the SR20 where there is more light and visibility.
The run up was about the same except for the need to exercise the prop separately on the 300. No big deal, again just different.
When we took the runway and applied full power, there definitely is a push back in the seat after all 300 horse should buy you something! Take off roll was smooth and the controls responsive. We rotated about 70 KIAS as I recall and were airborne in a flash. The vertical speed indicator was removed in favor of a G-meter so I can not tell you the VSI, but we was going up big time!
Having just fought headwinds and temps in the SR20 the day before, I was focused on the climb rate and engine cooling. The 300 climbs extremely well and doesn’t even break a “sweat”. CHT was under 350 and Oil temp was about 180 (as I recall). In the SR20 my temps would have been much higher Â… CHTs about 400 and Oil temps about 200+. I was impressed. It would appear that Lancair knows how to cool engines.
I am now sitting in DLH and having just spend some time going over the cooling issues with the Mike Busch (head of Customer Service) there are some things that apparently need some tweaking on my engine. Timing was off slightly. The fuel flow was a little low at max power and Cirrus may make some minor baffling changes too. The bottom line is these changes may have some positive impact on keeping the engine a little cooler. However, the fact remains that the Cirrus SR20 is not as good in cooling the engine as the 300.
We leveled off and watched the speed climb. In level cruise (25" & 2,500 RPM) we were doing 170 to 175 knots (KTAS Â… adjusted for altitude and temp). Clearly, the 300 is faster, but so is its ability to eat fuel. I didn’t observe the fuel flow closely enough to give you an accurate reading.
Landing was interesting in that we slowed to 129 KIAS, lowered on notch of flaps (there are two notches just like the SR20), slowed to 119 KIAS and dropped the final notch. Kept the AS at 105 KIAS and were descending at nearly 2,500 FPM! The attitude was nearly a 30 to 40 degree angle of descent! We slowed to about 80 KIAS with full flaps on landing. Landing is very similar to the SR20 except the 300’s landing gear is much more narrow than the SR20. I would think the SR20 would provide a much more stable platform on the ground than the 300.
Bottom line for me Â… it’s an SR20 decision all the way. The biggest factor is comfort and visibility.
Bottom line for me Â… it’s an SR20 decision all the way. The biggest factor is comfort and visibility.
Second opinion anyone…? I’ll be in Bend on Friday to fly the 300, and am going up in an SR20 over the weekend (been in neither in the air – only on the ground) so I’ll try to give them a fair shake. Any questions anyone wants me to ask or manuevers to try?
You may want to go ahead and spin 'em both. That may finally end some of the ongoing discussions in this forum
Columbia versus the SR20
Walt,
Did you have any personal preference on the SR20 side yoke versus the Columbia side Stick?
How about stick feel? I was just wondering how the SR20 stiff spring system feels compared to the pushrod/trim tabs on the Columbia.
Or is it just a no brainer and both are intuitive and work fine?
Thanks!
It is intuitive. They both work great, but there is a little difference in feel. I wouldn’t think anyone would have a problem with either system.