The Lancair kit folks quoted MPH (and still do so), not the Lancair certified aircraft. Lancair Certified (which became Columbia) never quoted MPH.
Bob is correct, sort of. I spoke with Randy Bolinger (who was the VP of Marketing for Columbia at the time) and he thought it was a good idea. He tried to orchestrate a proper fly-off between Mooney, Columbia and Cirrus. It was to be an apples to apples comparison, with all three configured identically (no A/C with ice protection). The other parties balked (according to Randy). The challenge is that most 400’s have A/C while most (correct me if I’m wrong) TN22’s don’t have A/C but have TKS (which most 400’s don’t have). Then there’s the chute.
Here is what I know about the speeds, based on my personal experience. The G2 TN22 (non-A/C with TKS) is about 5 knots slower than a 400 with A/C and hot prop (but no wing de-ice). Adding A/C to a 400 costs 10 knots. I’ve got a lot of educated theories (backed up by discussions with Dieter Kohler and both Justin Reimer and Dave McRae at RDDent) for this but the speed reduction was well known amonst the sales staff. The hot prop cost about 2 knots. These comparisons are all LOP. Nobody that I know of runs the 400 ROP, but it is available if you really want to go fast (and burn a lot of fuel). The 400 (LOP) burns about 1-1.5 GPH more than the TN22, so the TN22 is more efficient.
If you forgo the A/C and do a few mods (like ensuring the exhuaust pipes are blueprinted and the baffling is correct), the 400 can be a screamer. RDDent has had numerous examples of increasing cruise speeds by at least 5-10 knots.
So, I can attest that Bob’s guess is correct. However, if the 400 does not have A/C, this would go up to as much as 15 knots. The TN22 does climb faster for the first 2000-3000 feet but then the 400 climbs faster above that.
What’s a shame is that the outboard wing cuff (which both the TN22 and 400 have) is really not necessary on the 400. The inboard wing leading edge triangle is also not needed (in fact it was initially a cause of spin recovery problems at high altitude). If the 400 had a straight wing (like the Lancair IV), it would actually be more spin recoverable and the aircraft would cruise at least 15 knots faster (no kidding). However, all things cost money and having a different wing than the 350 was not to be.
I have been told at one point that the Columbia “235 knot” speed was under ideal conditions, full throttle (guzzling 100LL) and at 25,000 feet. And even then, I’ve been told that it doesn’t always live up to the billing. The reality is that I just can’t imagine many people actually flying often under the above conditions and so most of the time, a pilot flying a 400 or an SR22 from point A to point B are going to get there in the same approximate amount of time.
Before we purchased our Cirrus Turbo Perspective, I flew the Columbia/Cessna 400 as well. It is a fast plane but during our flight tests - where I flew it at altitudes mostly of 10,000 AGL and below - there was maybe a 4-5 knot difference between our SR22T. This is mostly due to the fact that the C400 is turbo charged - which adds a little extra effective horsepower - versus the Cirrus which is turbo-normalized.
However, I’d rather have my engine run cooler and make it further towards the TBO than constantly run hot and be subject to potentially higher maintenance for such a small speed differential that I would probably never notice it. The reality is that wind conditions will have a much greater impact on a given flight than the small speed difference between the 2 planes.
What I described in my previous post for the 400 applies to the 350. Also, the 2006 350SL was a pig. I owned 190DW, which was the certification 350. It easily maintained the book numbers, but it did not have A/C or a hot prop and lots of useful load. I routinely got over 180 knots LOP. I’ve always suspected issues with the molds and rigging on the 2006 350’s (along with A/C), which cost lots of speed. How well do the doors fit?
One thing to note. 2007 Columbias and 2008 Cessna 350/400’s were gaining useful load (lots of it) and were noticeably faster.
I agree with you about the electrical system. The G3 made improvements, but the 350/400 got it right from the start. I also agree with you about Cessna. They still don’t have basic upgrades completed. Sad.
Chris, why would the 400 “constantly run hot”? If you’re using LOP operations, the same 380 CHT limit applies.
I don’t know that it does. But if it does, the likely reason is due to the turbocharging the 400 operates at 7.5:1 compression, vs the turbonormalized SR22’s 8.5:1. The lower compression means the engine is less thermodynamically efficient, raising the EGT’s by ~100F. That extra waste heat needs to be gotten rid of somehow.
The doors fit well, and this plane has A/C, so that must be the reason it is 10 knots slow! The thing loves to have oil all down the belly just like my old SR22 though, so I feel at home with it. As for useful load, I guess I ought to open the POH and see what the #'s are? I only fly it solo or with one other person, so weight isn’t an issue. I’m hoping to have it sold by the end of the month.
John;
I left my SR22 in SDL over Thanksgiving thanks to the same icing. A buddy flew his Citation jet the same day and said the icing was pretty bad - so we made the right call! Frankly I don’t think I would fly a Cirrus into known icing even with an approved TKS system. Too much can go wrong with such an amateurish system. A pump failure, running out of fluid, clogged mesh, etc. I’ve turned mine on twice in 3 years when flying through an unexpected cloud at night, and I was glad to have the help. I wouldn’t want to rely on it though. This is really the shortcoming of the turbo, as higher altitudes often are unusable for me. PHX has terrain eastbound that leaves few choices. Let me know if you’re in PHX often - I am and we can have a drink.
Jason
I think the secret is the Cessna’s incredibly ugly front wheel pant!
Jason:
You have the right idea about a FIKI single engine plane. It is nothing more than a legal way to get yourself into trouble. AND, things can go wrong with the deice system. There are already folks with stories of how the hoses became disconnected and no TKS fluid was getting to the wings.
Anyone who actually thinks a single engine FIKI is safe is really asking for problems. You have to consider each flight with respect to icing pretty much the same way whether you have TKS, FIKI or no ice protection at all. In neither situation are you going to stay in ice so you need the same “outs” and the same overall strategy as if you had no ice protection at all. The ice protection just buys more time to get out of the ice but you still have to get out in all of the above scenarios.
Nobody knows that - - because it is a marketing myth from the Columbia side.
As it happens. I HAVE flown both aircraft side by side. A Columbia with an early TN SR 22 back in the summer of 2006.
We did a formation departure from KADH (ELEV 1007’ MSL) and a direct climb to 17,500 feet. I was riding in the Columbia with the owner. One of our pilots was flying the TN SR22.
Both aircraft were ballasted up to max gross weight. It was a 100dF for real day.
One airplane departed and the other departed about 15 seconds later.
We watched the relative positions on the TCAS readouts. They stayed pretty much the same to 17,500.
Passing through ~ 11,000 feet the Columbia exerienced what I believe is the single worst episode of vapor lock I have ever seen in 43 years of flying turbocharged aircraft.
In cruise at 17,500 feet, the TN SR 22 was set up at a typical 17.3 gph and all of the CHTs remained below 380dF.
If I set the Columbia up LOP (it ran a bit rough, but it was marginally OK) at 17.3 gph, it would be about 3-4 knots faster. However, the CHTs climbed rapidly above 400dF.
If I leaned the Columbia so as to keep the CHTs below 380dF - - the aircraft flew the exact same speed. The Columbia may have actually been a knot or two slower. I hear that the later Columbia’s had some tweaks to improve cooling, but I have not tested that.
I demonstrated the early prototype TN SR22 to a Cirrus marketing person one time early in the program. He wanted to know the absolute max speed. I told him I was not very interested. He insisted.
We ran it flat out at altitude for about 15 minutes with the mixtures set to “normal ROP” mixture settings. Warm day. It was showing 229KTS true. CHTs were above 400d F. I strongly recommended to Cirrus to not publish those kinds of numbers as part of their marketing material - - and to their great credit and consistent with a long history of conservative numbers - - they agreed.
One of the early issues that came up was that Dale - - thought I had the TN installation running “too cool” . We talked about that. At that time, I was still trying to get it to run a few degrees cooler. Dale thought we would increase the drag by making it run cooler. I convinced him that I didn’t want any 3pm phone calls from Phoenix in August ! I pointed out that I thought his perspective on cooling from the tip of Lake Superior was a bit suspect. And he agreed. We worked on it a while longer and made some changes that had no effect on drag - - and obtained the cooling results everyone has enjoyed ever since.
Regards, George Braly
So the answer is that owing to unique configuration issues it will be very hard to stage an “apples to apples” fly off of the TN22 and Columbia 400. Best we could do is find TN22 and Columbia 400 without air conditioning. But even that fly off would disadvantage the TN22 owing to TKS and CAPs. A fly off between a Perspective TN22 and a current Columbia 400 would level the gross weight issue for electrical system differences, as both electrical systems are comparable. You could adjust gross weight in the Columbia 400 to account for those features (CAPs and TKS weight) but since there are few if any TN22’s without TKS there is no way to account for the aerodynamic effect of the TKS panels.
My guess is if you give the TN22 5 knots to account for the aerodynamic effects of TKS, then handicap the gross weight for options and features not present in both aircraft, the result would be pretty close to a dead heat in cruise with both aircraft producing the same power.
What this really says is that Columbia has been successful in creating the illusion that the Columbia 400 is much faster than the Cirrus TN22 given the post that started this thread. I applaud Cirrus for understating performance numbers in the SJ50 and piston airplanes. But this is a good example of how it can hurt as the novice buyers start kicking the tires.
Bob,
If you set the weight of both planes the same, how does CAPS affect the test? Assume that you won’t be deploying CAPS during the test. That would be a drag.
-Mike
It doesn’t. As I said in the post final flying weight of each plane should be the same (ideally max gross weight) to do the fly off.
I have a lot of time in both cirrus and columbia products and i can
tell you that they are similar in performance. The 03-05 avidyne
columbias are much closer to book values. The post G1000 birds are a
little slower, the added weight and some minor changes slowed them a
little. Cessna has since made some small changes to get them back up
closer to book numbers.
over all, they are all nice birds. it just depends on what flavor you like.
Bob, Im
curious about who you are talking about at thermal. We have an 06 col
400 in hangar c46, is that the “new” aircraft that you are referring to?
The new one I spotted is in B row facing east. It must be new since there is a big Cessna sticker on the tail. I am at A5. I have seen your airplane around. Next time we are in Thermal I will look you up.
A friend of mine was a long time test pilot for Columbia. He told me that countless hours went into the development of the landing gear on the Columbias. He thinks they are a bit more efficient then the Cirrus gear. At one point they were developing a retractable version of the 350/400. In wind tunnel testing, the fixed landing gear on the 400 was so efficient, gains of only about 7 kts were realized on the retractable. This is one of the reasons the retractable version was scrapped.
The modest advantage the Cessnumbias may have over the Cirrus never really phazed me. However, I have always appreciated the fully redundant electrical system and the utility category rating. That is one tough airframe.
Looking forward to PIREPS when the LoPresti Speed Skates (last seen at M6) make their appearance with their promised 3-5kt speed improvements.
Just looking at the two birds one can see a difference. It seems just the narrower fuselage and a more aerodynamic windscreen on the 400 would reduce drag enough to make a considerable difference in speed. It cant just be for vanity!
If you take a tape measure to both, you will find that the fuselage width is identical. I know it doesn’t look that way from the inside but the tape doesn’t lie. Both are about 6 inches wider than a Bonanza.
If you look at the side view of both, there is a difference in the shape and height of the canopy.