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

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.

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

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!!!)

"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

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...ation/200706/1

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...

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

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)

"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

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.