Opss forgot to attach.


   Robin and I just went for a ride in Mark Steitle home built
    3 rotor powered Lancair ES now built and sold by Cessna
   as the "Columbia" for 3/4 of million US dollars.

The "Columbia" made by Cessna is one of the two certified  2 seater
airplanes sold by Cessna. The first one are named Skycatcher, the second
one are called Corvalis, this one was origionally a Columbia. Don't
think so, just because they installed 4 seats inside, fill up the gas
tank and see what you have left. This one have less left than it should
and the range is no that good either. The RV 10 is a real 4 seater, same
with the 182. The 172 is more like a 2+2, those in the back better be
children.
Tony Lam
YYZ
. . . . . . . .

4 seater then and now. Nothing to do with the 2 seater aluminium
Skycatcher.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_400


"The Cessna 400 was derived from the normally aspirated Columbia 300
which was itself derived from the Lancair ES kit aircraft."

"The 400 is powered by a turbocharged Continental TSIO-550-C engine
producing 310 horsepower (230 kW) at 2600 rpm. The 400 features a Garmin
G1000 glass cockpit that was later incorporated into the 300 to create
the Cessna 350."

"The 400's Continental TSIO-550-C engine is capable of being operated
lean of peak. Measured in flight at 11,000 feet (3355 m), 50 F° (28 C°)
rich of peak turbine inlet temperature, maximum cruise yielded 199 knots
(369 km/h) true air speed and 24.7 US gallons (93 L) per hour fuel flow.
At the same operating parameters and 50-75 °F lean of peak the 400 was
measured at 189 knots (350 km/h) TAS and 17.8 US gal (67 L)/hr (106.8
lb/hr, 67.6 l/hr)."

Paul Lamar
   --
Paul,

FWIW: While the Columbia and Corvalis (Cessna 400) were derived from the
Lancair ES, and are superficially similar, they are totally different
aircraft--different wing, different airfoil, different fuselage and tail
feathers.  They had to be different in order to receive FAA certification
and market acceptance.  When I first flew the Lancair ES at Oshkosh in
1996,
I told then that they needed to widen the fuselage at least four
inches, add
a second door, enlarge the vertical stabilizer, and enlarge the
baggage door
(to provide alternate exit) in case of nose-over accident.  I could go
on.

When I picked up my ES kit in February 1997, I saw the prototype Columbia
which was then undergoing spin testing.  It had all the above changes,
plus
some.  (I would not want to try spinning my now completed ES, the tail
feathers are too small.  Note that I added a ventral fin.)

Tony's point about the Corvalis being a two-seat airplane is essentially
correct.  With FULL FUEL (106 gallons), payload is a mere 358 lbs.  This
gives the pilot the option of long range with two people (the average
load
in a 4-seat airplane), or reduce fuel for shorter range flights with
four.
That is the kind of flexibility demanded by today's customers.

The RV-10 cited by Tony is a great airplane.  Van kept the structure
light,
giving an empty weight of around 1600 lbs.  It will carry four people
with
full fuel of 65 gallons.  But you'll have to make more fuel stops than
the
two people in the Corvalis.  And of course, you won't have the built in
oxygen system, standard full-time airconditioning, or dual
turbochargers of
the Corvalis.  Two very different aircraft for two very different market
segments.

Incidentally, the empty Corvalis is also 600 lbs heavier than my empty
Lancair ES.

Tom Parkes

Anytime in the past when I see the word "certified" added to an
airplane, the airplane is basically an inferior version than their
experimental cousin. A good example is the Europa Vs the Liberty. I can
see most planes would have to leave some payload behind for a full tank,
but being left with only 358 lbs, is cutting it too much.
Like the King Air, when it was first introduced, it was a marginal
product, but after decades of incremental improvements, it became a very
good airplane. Cessna will have to do the same for the Corvalis. But
unlike Beech, they may not have the luxury of time, newer design like
Flight Designs  C4 are coming on line fast, maybe they will force them
to finally stop making the 172/182 etc.  I call these planes the Wichita
Insult, here is a big company, pitching an essentially 50 year old
airframe, updated the design (by lawyers) and the panel, and pass it off
as new planes, take it or leave it. The RV9 when first introduced, with
the same engine as the 152, cruises 40 mph faster without giving up
anything else.
Using the same old fashioned aluminium construction. I guess these
companies work with different rules of aerodynamics than Cessna.
Tony
YYZ

 The Rotary Engine News Letter. Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site. http://www.rotaryeng.net
You Tube key word PaulLamar2
Copyright 1998-2012 All world wide rights reserved.