Mooney Acclaim vs. Columbia 350/400 (which has fixed landing gear??)

[Justin Gombos]

Doesn't it bother you Columbia fanatics that the manufacturer designed
the landing gear to be fixed? Here's a pricey high-end aircraft where
most of the design decisions favored speed and range, then they
compromised the aerodynamics of it by using fixed landing gear.

Columbia is claiming their 400 model is the fastest single engine prop
aircraft on the planet (max cruise speed of 235 kts on their
comparison chart), though it's surprising that they can claim that
title with fixed landing gear. That number is probably worthless
since the manual spec'd the never exceed speed to be 230 kias.

Mooney is also claiming to have the fastest single engine - in their
Acclaim which allegedly has a normal cruise speed of 237 kts (at
FL250), yet Columbia is claiming that the same model has a max cruise
of 220 kts. The Columbia has 40 HP more, but I'm inclined to think
that some of that extra horsepower is being wasted on the drag of the
landing gear.

Mooney didn't publish their manual, so a realistic comparison on the
performance is difficult. It's not real useful to compare marketing
spin to marketing spin, or even the Columbia manual to Mooney's
marketing spin. Does anyone have a better idea of the performance and
efficiency differences?

BTW, is the Columbia they only single engine prop that has a side
stick?

--
PM instructions: do a C4esar Ciph3r on my address; retain punctuation.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Justin Gombos > wrote in news:HNFbi.8949
$Ar5.5244@trndny01:

> Doesn't it bother you Columbia fanatics that the manufacturer designed
> the landing gear to be fixed?

Why would an airplane design bother someone?

Except a planespotter, of course..


Bertie

[Bob Noel]

In article <HNFbi.8949$Ar5.5244@trndny01>,
Justin Gombos > wrote:

> Columbia is claiming their 400 model is the fastest single engine prop
> aircraft on the planet (max cruise speed of 235 kts on their
> comparison chart), though it's surprising that they can claim that
> title with fixed landing gear. That number is probably worthless
> since the manual spec'd the never exceed speed to be 230 kias.

True Airspeed doesn't equal Indicated Airspeed, except in special
conditions (e.g., down low).

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Dan Luke]

"Justin Gombos" wrote:

> Doesn't it bother you Columbia fanatics that the manufacturer designed
> the landing gear to be fixed?

No.

> That number is probably worthless
> since the manual spec'd the never exceed speed to be 230 kias.

Apparently, you haven't discovered the difference between IAS and TAS.


--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Justin Gombos wrote:
> The Columbia has 40 HP more, but I'm inclined to think ...

Based on the rest of your post, I'm inclined to be a little skeptical of
that.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200706/1

[buttman]

On Jun 12, 4:14 pm, Justin Gombos >
wrote:
> Doesn't it bother you Columbia fanatics that the manufacturer designed
> the landing gear to be fixed?

I bet if you were to remove the gear from that plane, it'd only add a
few knots to the speed. Unlike a Cessna, where you can get probably 10
to 15 knots increase, the ~240 knotters have by design slicker gear so
they lose less.

If you ask me, the era of retractable light GA planes is over. It just
doesn't make much sense anymore. Why add weight, operational
complexity, and extra points of failure to the system, when you can
just use fancy high-tech design techniques to achieve the same
outcome. Comumbia, Mooney, Cirrus, and now even Cessna have already
realized this.

>
> BTW, is the Columbia they only single engine prop that has a side
> stick?

huh, the Cirrus is a side stick...

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

buttman > wrote in news:1181702893.605390.37080
@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com:

> On Jun 12, 4:14 pm, Justin Gombos >
> wrote:
>> Doesn't it bother you Columbia fanatics that the manufacturer designed
>> the landing gear to be fixed?
>
> I bet if you were to remove the gear from that plane, it'd only add a
> few knots to the speed. Unlike a Cessna, where you can get probably 10
> to 15 knots increase, the ~240 knotters have by design slicker gear so
> they lose less.

Wow, you're really not vbery bright at all , are you?

Bertie

[Thomas Borchert]

Justin,

starting posts with trying to insult people isn't smart.

> then they
> compromised the aerodynamics of it by using fixed landing gear.
>

They did? Says who? By what measure?

"They" say we're talking 5 knots speed loss for that extremely
efficiently designed gear (same for Cirrus and Diamond). 5 knots for
losing all the weight of the retract mechanism, plus the maintenance
hassle and associated cost. Sounds like a sweet deal to me.

What you're really losing is macho feel. That's all.

As for the sidestick: No.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Justin Gombos" > wrote in message
news:HNFbi.8949$Ar5.5244@trndny01...
> Doesn't it bother you Columbia fanatics that the manufacturer designed
> the landing gear to be fixed?


Not at all.

> Here's a pricey high-end aircraft where
> most of the design decisions favored speed and range, then they
> compromised the aerodynamics of it by using fixed landing gear.

Retractable gear would have added over 120 lbs to the weight and gained
about 3 knots.


> Columbia is claiming their 400 model is the fastest single engine prop
> aircraft on the planet (max cruise speed of 235 kts on their
> comparison chart), though it's surprising that they can claim that
> title with fixed landing gear.

Super-clean design, high aspect ratio wing...

> That number is probably worthless
> since the manual spec'd the never exceed speed to be 230 kias.

INDICATED Air Speed, not TAS (you do know the difference, don't you?

> Mooney is also claiming to have the fastest single engine - in their
> Acclaim which allegedly has a normal cruise speed of 237 kts (at
> FL250), yet Columbia is claiming that the same model has a max cruise
> of 220 kts. The Columbia has 40 HP more, but I'm inclined to think
> that some of that extra horsepower is being wasted on the drag of the
> landing gear.

Not to mention the much bigger/wider cabin.

>
> Mooney didn't publish their manual, so a realistic comparison on the
> performance is difficult. It's not real useful to compare marketing
> spin to marketing spin, or even the Columbia manual to Mooney's
> marketing spin.

How about cost of insurance?

> Does anyone have a better idea of the performance and
> efficiency differences?

I can verify the C400 numbers, at least to 21,000 feet. As for the Mooney,
it achieves it's performance (a review by FLYING, verified them both at
235kts. IIRC, the Mooney would be running hotter to do it.).

> BTW, is the Columbia they only single engine prop that has a side
> stick?

Nope, Cirrus.
--
Matt Barrow
Performace Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

[Justin Gombos]

On 2007-06-13, Thomas Borchert > wrote:
> Justin,
>
> starting posts with trying to insult people isn't smart.

Where are you coming from? If you're implying that Columbia owners
are personally insulted by a mere criticism of an aircraft design that
they didn't contribute to, then their egos are obviously too fragile
for an unmoderated usenet group. I certainly did not intend to insult
someone by pointing out what appeared to be an adverse design
characteristic. The systems engineers who wrote the requirements
specification for the Columbia are the only ones who (within reason)
could possibly be insulted. But if they're professionals worth their
title, then they welcome criticism anyway. Perhaps some 17 year old
pilots would be offended by adverse comments toward GA products they
like, but then how many 17 year olds are going to start off in a
Columbia?

If you want to take the time to offer netiquette feedback, there
copious posters in this forum (in fact in this thread) where the
effort would be more appropriate. Just look at any post from Bertie,
who brings us back to the 3rd grade.

>> then they compromised the aerodynamics of it by using fixed landing
>> gear.
>
> They did? Says who? By what measure?

I personally don't need to see a lab meaurement to believe that fixed
landing gear compromises aerodynamics. It would indeed be a great
feat to be able to stick landing gear out of the belly of an aircraft
without inducing additional drag.

> "They" say we're talking 5 knots speed loss for that extremely
> efficiently designed gear (same for Cirrus and Diamond).

That's the sort of response I was looking for. The whole point of the
landing gear component of this discussion was to get an idea of how
significant the drag is. I can almost believe that the compromise of
fixed landing gear might be insignificant if it's designed well
enough. If the difference is trully only 5 knots, then I would agree
that it's a decent trade-off. So far it seems Bertie is the only one
to oppose that, assuming I correctly interpretted his ad hominem that
he directed toward the other gentleman.

> 5 knots for losing all the weight of the retract mechanism, plus the
> maintenance hassle and associated cost. Sounds like a sweet deal to
> me.

Yes it does. Now where did you come up with this 5 knot difference?

> What you're really losing is macho feel. That's all.

I wasn't aware that there was a machismo aspect to it.. but (according
to you) we're also losing 5 knots.

I can live w/out the 5 knots in exchange for the relief from dealing
with retractable gear, and the additional useful load, though probably
not everyone. Notice that all sportbikes (with perhaps just one
exception from BMW) are chain driven. This is because most sportbike
riders are willing to put up with the extra maintenance effort and
costs and deal with oil/wax fling in order to achieve an almost
insignificant performance gain.

--
PM instructions: do a C4esar Ciph3r on my address; retain punctuation.

[Justin Gombos]

On 2007-06-13, Matt Barrow > wrote:
>
> Retractable gear would have added over 120 lbs to the weight and
> gained about 3 knots.

Good point, if it's true. So the question is why would retractable
landing gear ever be used? Are there any publications to support the
idea that fixed landing gear induces such an insignificant drag?

>> That number is probably worthless since the manual spec'd the never
>> exceed speed to be 230 kias.
>
> INDICATED Air Speed, not TAS (you do know the difference, don't you?

Yes, in fact I have a PC. The figure from Columbia I was comparing
that to did not specify TAS - and a TAS figure is worthless without
other parameters, so I naturally expected it to be in KIAS or KCAS in
that context. But after looking at the cruise performance table for
25k ft. in the Columbia 400 manual, I can see that marketing was using
a cruise TAS value assuming everything pegged at max altitude.

> How about cost of insurance?

I've never shopped it out. What difference can I expect?

--
PM instructions: do a C4esar Ciph3r on my address; retain punctuation.

[Bob Martin]

Justin Gombos wrote:
> On 2007-06-13, Matt Barrow > wrote:
>> Retractable gear would have added over 120 lbs to the weight and
>> gained about 3 knots.
>
> Good point, if it's true. So the question is why would retractable
> landing gear ever be used? Are there any publications to support the
> idea that fixed landing gear induces such an insignificant drag?

Well, it's not a "publication" as such, but a couple guys on the VAF forums have
built/flown RV-4's with retractable gear. One guy built two airplanes, one retract and
one fixed, and said the performance (speed for a given power setting) was virtually
identical. The fixed-gear one not only weighed a fair bit less (as expected), but also
had more fuel capacity and higher structural limits (due to the location of the landing
gear).

[Newps]

Justin Gombos wrote:

>
>
>>How about cost of insurance?
>
>
> I've never shopped it out. What difference can I expect?

I pay $1900 per year for my apparently now passe' Bonanza. If I were to
buy a new Columbia I would be looking at at least $8-10,000 per year for
the same insurance. I have 250 pounds more useful load than the
Columbia with 300 pounds less gross weight(3300 vs 3600 lbs) so it looks
to me as though the Columbia is already a bloated pig. Pretty small
tires, better stay on the pavement, a deal breaker in my book. A high
stall speed, another downer. As far as I can see all I give up is
speed, not a fair trade.

[Thomas Borchert]

Justin,

> Now where did you come up with this 5 knot difference?

I've read that number at least in Flying, AOPA Pilot and Aviation
Consumer. I've also seen quotes and heard interviews with company execs,
e.g. Alan Klapmeyer, where the number was mentioned.

> I wasn't aware that there was a machismo aspect to it..

My thinking (half in jest) was that the gear lever makes many GA pilots
feel like "real" pilots when they move it up.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Justin,

> So the question is why would retractable
> landing gear ever be used? Are there any publications to support the
> idea that fixed landing gear induces such an insignificant drag?
>

Not any landing gear. The Columbia and Cirrus gear is specifically
designed for low drag.

Why do retract at all? More drag at higher speeds (for fast airplanes),
marketing, lack of materials for efficient gear design, among others.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> Justin Gombos wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>>How about cost of insurance?
>>
>>
>> I've never shopped it out. What difference can I expect?
>
> I pay $1900 per year for my apparently now passe' Bonanza. If I were to
> buy a new Columbia I would be looking at at least $8-10,000 per year for
> the same insurance.

I'm paying $4735.

>I have 250 pounds more useful load than the Columbia with 300 pounds less
>gross weight(3300 vs 3600 lbs) so it looks to me as though the Columbia is
>already a bloated pig.

Is your's certified in the "Utility" category? Does it have dual everything
including dual wing spars?

Does yours have A/C and anti-ice/de-ice?

> Pretty small tires, better stay on the pavement, a deal breaker in my
> book. A high stall speed, another downer.

60 knots is a high stall speed? If it does stall, it won't spin like your's
will.

> As far as I can see all I give up is speed, not a fair trade.

Next time you're in your Bo, raise your knees six inches, or expand your
shoulders...

[Newps]

Matt Barrow wrote:

>>I have 250 pounds more useful load than the Columbia with 300 pounds less
>>gross weight(3300 vs 3600 lbs) so it looks to me as though the Columbia is
>>already a bloated pig.
>
>
> Is your's certified in the "Utility" category?



Yes, up to gross weight.


Does it have dual everything
> including dual wing spars?

No idea.


>
> Does yours have A/C and anti-ice/de-ice?

No, that's why the Columbia is a bloated pig.


>
>
>> Pretty small tires, better stay on the pavement, a deal breaker in my
>>book. A high stall speed, another downer.
>
>
> 60 knots is a high stall speed?


Yes.



If it does stall, it won't spin like your's
> will.


Mine doesn't spin in a stall. I believe that's a certification requirement.


>
>
>> As far as I can see all I give up is speed, not a fair trade.
>
>
> Next time you're in your Bo, raise your knees six inches,

Why?


or expand your
> shoulders...

How do you do that?

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>>>I have 250 pounds more useful load than the Columbia with 300 pounds less
>>>gross weight(3300 vs 3600 lbs) so it looks to me as though the Columbia
>>>is already a bloated pig.
>>
>>
>> Is your's certified in the "Utility" category?
>
>
>
> Yes, up to gross weight.

Not "Normal" category?

>
>
> Does it have dual everything
>> including dual wing spars?
>
> No idea.

Nice way to make an assessment there.

>
>
>>
>> Does yours have A/C and anti-ice/de-ice?
>
> No, that's why the Columbia is a bloated pig.

Those are options, you know.

>>> Pretty small tires, better stay on the pavement, a deal breaker in my
>>> book. A high stall speed, another downer.
>>
>>
>> 60 knots is a high stall speed?
>
>
> Yes.

Yeah, right.
>
>
> If it does stall, it won't spin like your's
>> will.
>
>
> Mine doesn't spin in a stall. I believe that's a certification
> requirement.

Being that is a general requirement, all those spin accidents (not just any
make/model) are a figment of the NTSB's imagination?

>>> As far as I can see all I give up is speed, not a fair trade.
>>
>>
>> Next time you're in your Bo, raise your knees six inches,
>
> Why?

For comparison...especially on those six hours flights you seem to enjoy.

> or expand your
>> shoulders...
>
> How do you do that?

Stretching, primarily into that narrow Bo cabin.

:~)

When I got my B36, it was like riding in a luxury car by comparison with the
182's and 210 I used to operate.

The C400, though, is something else....like riding in a limo.

For your mission, the Bo is a fine machine. Mine sure served well for six
years.

For others, the C400 provides CAPABILITY.

Your's is, essentially a toy (ie, personal use...not frivilous by any
means), for some, though, it's a tool. Keep that in mind before throwing
denigration to overcome your dissonance.

[Newps]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>Matt Barrow wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>I have 250 pounds more useful load than the Columbia with 300 pounds less
>>>>gross weight(3300 vs 3600 lbs) so it looks to me as though the Columbia
>>>>is already a bloated pig.
>>>
>>>
>>>Is your's certified in the "Utility" category?
>>
>>
>>
>>Yes, up to gross weight.
>
>
> Not "Normal" category?

Utility, 4.4G's up to the 3300 pound gross weight. No limit on who sits
where. I can have all six seats filled if I want.


>
>
>>
>> Does it have dual everything
>>
>>>including dual wing spars?
>>
>>No idea.
>
>
> Nice way to make an assessment there.

Like I said, 4.4 G's to 3300. Not interested in dual all that other
crap, doesn't fit the mission.


>
>
>>
>>>Does yours have A/C and anti-ice/de-ice?
>>
>>No, that's why the Columbia is a bloated pig.
>
>
> Those are options, you know.

A/C was an option, don't want it because it's too heavy. Don't need it
because I live here.



>
>
>>>>Pretty small tires, better stay on the pavement, a deal breaker in my
>>>>book. A high stall speed, another downer.
>>>
>>>
>>>60 knots is a high stall speed?
>>
>>
>>Yes.
>
>
> Yeah, right.

High stall speed=long landing distance. Not good. That's as bad as
getting a ground lover on takeoff, like a Mooney.



>
>>
>> If it does stall, it won't spin like your's
>>
>>>will.
>>
>>
>>Mine doesn't spin in a stall. I believe that's a certification
>>requirement.
>
>
> Being that is a general requirement, all those spin accidents (not just any
> make/model) are a figment of the NTSB's imagination?


That's poor pilot technique. There's not enough Columbia's in the fleet
to know how that will turn out. Just like Bo's coming apart in the air.
It's already structurually the strongest GA plane out there. But put
it in a dive and it gets to 300 MPH indicated in less than 10 seconds.
You can't build a plane that will do that and handle the pilot pulling
on the yoke.


>
>
>>>>As far as I can see all I give up is speed, not a fair trade.
>>>
>>>
>>>Next time you're in your Bo, raise your knees six inches,
>>
>>Why?
>
>
> For comparison...especially on those six hours flights you seem to enjoy.

Raise my knees? If I had gymnast like flexibility I could put my feet
on the ceiling. I can bring each knee to my chest or move my legs to
the other footwell to stretch out. I have more manuverability than in
my previous 182. Fours hours max then I gotta pee. No way, no how do I
go five.

[Ken Reed]

> That's as bad as getting a ground lover on takeoff, like a Mooney.

The 'E' model Mooney, probably the most popular one built and therefore
representative of the type has a take-off ground roll of 760 ft and a
landing roll of 595 feet. Ground lover ???

--
Ken Reed
M20M, N9124X

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-06-15, Matt Barrow > wrote:
> 60 knots is a high stall speed? If it does stall, it won't spin like your's
> will.

Hmm. I've stalled an S-35 Bonanza plenty of times. It never entered a
spin.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de