I wouldn’t say that the Columbia 400 / Cessna 400 / Cessna Corvalis TT / Cessna TTx is significantly faster. In LOP operations at FL250 the Lancair LC550-FG will fly in the neighborhood of 225 KTAS and the Cirrus SR-22T around 215 KTAS. That’s about a 5% difference between the two aircraft. Both aircraft are pretty slippery, but the Cirrus has a slightly larger cabin combined with a turbocharging system more optimized for economy. You can wring a few more knots out of the Columbia at the expense of more fuel burn. It goes back to the philosophy of design where the Columbia follows Lance Neibauer’s quest to build speedy composite rockets vs Cirrus with follows the Klapmeiers’ vision of an everyman‘s airplane which utilizes advanced technology and clean aerodynamics.
It is probably a bit faster in general, i think the main reason is the smaller and lower cabin. For the higher speed you pay with less space and bad visibility, at least that was my impression when I flew the Columbia 400 prototype back in 1997.
And the 400 has very small cargo space where the 22 is an suv
400/TTx-120 lbs, 25 cu ft
SR22G5-130 lbs, 32 cu ft
Different, but not exactly “An SUV” IMHO…[:)]
Odd to see this thread resurrected 8 years out.
I thought the Columbia was faster because Carl Rossi was just a better pilot than I am, and perhaps because I couldn’t fit into the right seat of the C400 without a frontal lobotomy, which might speed the Cirrus up a little, and probably wouldn’t affect my ADM as much as it should.
They are both pretty slick.
It is a tough business, in a shrinking market.
Richard,
Since I/we own three of the things perhaps I am the one who would a) either benefit from said lobotomy or b) underwent one at Textron’s secret facility in Independence, KS [which is modeled after a similar structure in Vero Beach, just ask Chuck…except he won’t remember…] before purchase.
In 10+ years of ownership I have maxed out the cargo compartment exactly once, and that was for the COPA Churchill trip last year, by the time I added survival kit, rifle, extra TKS, etc., we were right at 120 lbs.
If you really gotta haul lots of stuff, and want to be able to do so without having to reconfigure the inside of your airplane [TTx rear seats come out and you can vastly expand cargo space, but it’s a PITA to do so…] get a 206 or a Saratoga…
With an Italian last name, they let you own a rifle in California?
The way things are going, probably not for long…
As to why the 400/TTx is marginally faster, as others have mentioned it all comes down to the design, I suspect the SR22 is a bit draggier due to different cabin configuration and windshield rake. Good for perhaps 10 knots max at realistic power settings? When we flew on the Churchill trip last year, we were a bit faster than some of the planes [and yes I did have fun at the pre-flight briefing saying “Don’t worry, I can always slow down for everybody!” I’m sure that endeared me to the crowd[:)].
Both are certainly fast enough to be decent X/C travel machines, although last week when I was trying to return to Kalifohania from Texas after our training event it certainly would have been nice to have a jet [Rudy-I know you will read this-and I know what will come next!].
My instructor for the weekend, who owns and flies an Eclipse, enjoyed giving me a hard time along the lines of “You know, if you could go to FL 410, I bet that line would be relatively easy to navigate”. Salt in wound…
These Eclipse Pilots! He even forgot that going west he can only do 40000! [:)]
Looking at the 400 vs the cirrus from the front, you can see that the 400 cockpit is oval and the cirrus rectangular. The rectangular keeps the top and bottom corners away from you. This gives a larger, more comfortable cabin.
The smaller flat plate area of the oval reduces the drag and therefore in this comparison with very similar leading edge cuff wings and identical engines in the normally aspirated version will yield at least 3 or more knots of increased cruise speed at the normal 6 to 10,000 ft levels.
I will say this since I’ve owned both a Cirrus and Columbia/Cessna. I would take the Columbia/Cessna any day over the Cirrus IF it had a parachute. I still can’t believe Cessna pulled the 400 off the market for a couple years and didn’t come back with the parachute in addition to the FIKI. Catastrophic mistake. As for a hand flying bird, no question the Cessna is a better feeling/flying bird.
https://youtu.be/3-SIepo6YwQThe new Lancair Mako has the BPS option and higher performance numbers then both the TTX and the Cirrus.
Cool video. The gear is pretty ugly [6] sorry to day. I know, you cannot see it from the cockpit [:P]
I have a friend that just finished is Lancair Legacy. Different airplane I know. But it has the same engine as my Cirrus and it just blows the Cirrus away. Geez, that thing is fast.
Carl,
“…get a 206 or a Saratoga…”
You mean “…get a PA-46T…” There, I fixed it for you. [tag:InBeforeChuck] [:P]
Best,
This an old story that predates even this ancient thread, but newer members may enjoy it. Back when I owned a C182 260se/stol conversion and was also renting SR20, I traded good-natured barbs with a Columbia 400 owner:
“If we both flew from Phoenix to San Diego, I [the 400 owner] would be at Anthony’s with two scotches in me and dinner being served by the time you landed,” he proclaimed.
“That’s true,” I replied, “At your 220+ KTAS vs. my 150 you’d arrive at least an hour earlier. But in the last analysis, what can I say about a pilot who would rather drink for an hour than fly?”
The conversation turned to other subjects…[;)]
Not at the altitudes I routinely fly [mid-Teens]…[:)]
Yes, it is and that’s a very good thing. A good friend of mine built one of the nicest Legacy’s I’ve ever seen. It won an outstanding craftsmanship award at AirVenture. It has awesome performance numbers.
As a favor, he flew me from central Oklahoma to northern Minnesota a while back. 743 NM. LOP cruise was about 225 KTAS. It took only 3:30 to get there. While I was very grateful for the ride, I didn’t enjoy it very much.
We were wedged in, shoulder to shoulder in a semi-prone seats with about 12 inches of width in the footwell. Our heads were right up against the canopy and there was really no way to get comfortable. I was very happy to spend an extra 45 min in my roomy SR22 getting home.
Guess what? He just completed an RV14 and sold his Legacy! Turns out that while speed is great fun it does not trump comfort if you plan on actually going places.
Amen brother! I looked really hard at a Mooney and came to the same conclusion.
Jeff,
Absolutely concur. A friend of mine gave me an opportunity to fly with him in his Mooney. While the controls were smooth, the “Mummy Bag” feel in the footwell, as well as the relative narrowness compared to the Piper I was then flying led me to look much, much harder at the SR22. And the rest, they say, is history.
Best,
One of the guys had a meeting at a hotel next to Atlanta Hartsfield (ATL). He flew into ATL in his plane since the meetings were right there; I think it was a Glasair III. They asked him to slow down on approach. [:O]
Pack an IO-550 into a light two-seater and zoom, zoom, zoom.