Can't vouch for the Turbo'd 400, but like others who have flown or own one, the Lancair / Columbia / TTx is an incredible SEP and seriously under-rated in general. That siad, it was that under-rated Market that allowed me to get into one for the price of a same year & TIS Cessna 172 !

Rick,

Loved your post. But a little miffed. I've had to work hard for every +1 I've gotten. All you did was ask for them and look what happened. *one of them is from me "

Mark

How is the new TTX engine or airframe better than the old Comumbia 400 or Cessna pre-TTX?

I just bought a 2007 Columbia 400. The TTx is simply the latest iteration of it. The engine is the same TSIO550C. The airframe is essentially the same, the appointments and furnishings and the G2000 are the biggest differences between the TTx and 400, as well as the available FIKI system. (the 400 can be had with TKS or Thermawing, but not FIKI).

It is a FANTASTIC airplane!!!

I too, no longer needed the seats in my Seneca II. I have gotten used to turbochargers and wanted to keep that. The other must have in my requirement list was that it fit my T-hangar. The Cirrus SR22 will not, as it had the same wingspan as the Seneca II at 38'.

The TTx/400 is only 36' including the tip lights.

The airplane is very comfortable to fly on long trips. Mine is very similar to the current TTx in most respects, having a G1000 vs. the G2000. I love the keypad with the G1000. Mine has the Oregon Aero seats, which were optional in the 400, but standard now in the TTx (with upgraded leather).

Performance, engine and equipment between the 400 and TTx are identical. Same airframe and engine. Cessna made some refinements in the TTx, got a new TCDS issued. They also made FIKI (TKS) optional.

It LOVES to go fast. It also loves to run LOP. I just flew a trip where I was running about 190kts true on 15.5 gph. With a bit of tailwind up high, I had 200+ knots of groundspeed. When I was letting down from 11,000', I pulled off some power and set the A/P to a 500fpm descent and was quickly up to a groundspeed of 220kts!

What's crazy is a flew a trip in 2:00 hours, on the same amount of fuel that my Cherokee 180 would burn, except it would have taken 3 hours and change. Quite literally, the same amount of fuel, a whole hour less time.

The biggest transition for me was in airspeed management. It is a very slippery airplane. The speed brakes are definitely a good thing. It does use more runway than a typical single, but if you manage the airspeed per the short field performance landing methods in the POH, including the weight/speed chart, you'll be just fine. I'm very comfortable landing it anywhere I would have landed the Seneca II (which is a decent shortfield performer).

The 400/TTx has ample climb performance, all the way up to the flight levels.

I've flown other planes with a stick before. So that was an easy transition. The Cirrus has a "side yoke" while the 400/TTx has a side stick. Forces are a bit on the heavy side, but controls are pushrods rather than cables and very responsive. I actually enjoy hand flying it. I was not as crazy about the side-yoke and rudder/aileron interconnect in the SR22 I flew. (not sure if the interconnect is still part of the SR22?)

My plane does not have A/C or de-ice. Were I to do it over again, I'd probably shop for one with A/C. It is one thing that isn't a must-have, but it is sure a nice to have. I'd consider the Thermawing a plus and would pick it over TKS (non-fiki variety in the older ones). I figure if you're going to have a non-fiki deice, better to not bother with the fluid and all the mess that goes with it.

All in all, it is a really nice airplane. If it fits your mission, I think you'll really like it.

If you want to know more - join up the CAAC at this link.

http://www.cessnaadvancedaircraftclub.com/content.php

Great resources there. They even have a club subscription to all the official service manuals and data.

what he said ^^

it's also important to not rule out the experimental variants, i.e, the Lancair ES and ES-P- for example, the Cessna 400/TTx weighs 2500/2600 empty, I weigh 2059 empty...i get G3X touch, I can do A/C and Thermawing and still weigh less than a bone stock COL400/TTx

I talkec to a guy who had owned one for a couple years and he said his personal minimum runway length for the TTX is 3500' and he prefers 4000'.

That alone would kill it for me.

I agree - and I believe your insurance is not too bad on the ES. An ES-P is a heck of a plane (ES also if you don't care about o2)

I have flown many of the new TTx's. They are really fine planes. They fly very nice, the engine runs good, and the Garmin is great. And the engine page displays on the full MFD when selected .

Mark,

The Mooney Acclaim should be considered. Here are some real world numbers with TKS at 17.5"
223KTAS ROP 21ish GPH
216KTAS LOP 17ish GPH

Handles great climbs like a bat outta H. Those numbers would be 4 Kts faster or so without TKS. Loved my Ovation still miss her. May have to buy an Acclaim someday.

Mark,

The Mooney Acclaim should be considered. Here are some real world numbers with TKS at 17.5"
223KTAS ROP 21ish GPH
216KTAS LOP 17ish GPH

Handles great climbs like a bat outta H. Those numbers would be 4 Kts faster or so without TKS. Loved my Ovation still miss her. May have to buy an Acclaim someday. The dealer is Delta Aviation in Boise ID.

Experimental Amateur Built has its own list of pluses and minuses. That's a decision that depends a lot on the individual. It isn't for everyone.

I will say that I'm not finding a problem balancing fuel and payload. My particular plane has about 1083lbs of useful load. One has to figure landing weight and ZFW into the deal, but I'm not having problems balancing people and bags vs. fuel. It goes fast and far with reasonable amounts of fuel. You really don't have to tank a ton of gas around.

That's overkill. We all have our own personal minimums. I fly at a 3099' long field and have no issues getting off long before the end.

A do think a lot of people land them way too fast.

I watched a show about noodling for catfish. One of the guys being interviewed about the sport said "well when the bite on to you, you will either like it or you won't". He said the he liked the excitement of it.

What does that have to do with a TTx?
Go fly one- you will either like it, or you won't.

I flew 13 hours in the TTx two weeks ago for the first time. At about 10 hours in, I landed it within 1500 feet, according to the instructor (he measured by which taxiway I was able to turn off at). The takeoff distance is rated at 1900 feet (this is probably under ideal conditions). But I can understand higher personal minimums.

Chris,

Can you share a PIREP. What kind of flying did you do in those hours? What were your likes and dislikes?

I also reached out to Field at KMFR, seems like a great opportunity.

Thanks!

Mark