150-160kt cruisers
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
my 210 is probably as good in most areas as most of the competition, and better in some
That's correct; additional mission capability will come only from specific additional performance or equipment.
1) Operating ceiling (if you can do 20k then only a turbo engine will improve on that, but at substantial costs and bringing significant oxygen flow rate issues)
2) Climb rate (if you have 250HP then that will fix the climb rate for a given weight, more or less)
3) De-ice / anti-ice ?
But, if everybody looked at it that way, they would all be flying 30 year old planes, because there is not one single thing in e.g. an SR22 that gives you additional mission capability
That's correct; additional mission capability will come only from specific additional performance or equipment.
1) Operating ceiling (if you can do 20k then only a turbo engine will improve on that, but at substantial costs and bringing significant oxygen flow rate issues)
2) Climb rate (if you have 250HP then that will fix the climb rate for a given weight, more or less)
3) De-ice / anti-ice ?
But, if everybody looked at it that way, they would all be flying 30 year old planes, because there is not one single thing in e.g. an SR22 that gives you additional mission capability
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
From: Yorkshire
1) Operating ceiling (if you can do 20k then only a turbo engine will improve on that, but at substantial costs and bringing significant oxygen flow rate issues)
2) Climb rate (if you have 250HP then that will fix the climb rate for a given weight, more or less)
3) De-ice / anti-ice ?
But, if everybody looked at it that way, they would all be flying 30 year old planes, because there is not one single thing in e.g. an SR22 that gives you additional mission capability
2) Climb rate (if you have 250HP then that will fix the climb rate for a given weight, more or less)
3) De-ice / anti-ice ?
But, if everybody looked at it that way, they would all be flying 30 year old planes, because there is not one single thing in e.g. an SR22 that gives you additional mission capability
2) 310HP
3) Yup, booted up etc
And to answer your final comment - your absolutely right, hence this thread's entire raison d'etre !
Mind you, can't say I'd ever fancy something where the wings move much faster than the pilot ...
FF
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
From: LONDON
Getting into this thread late so apologies if I am repeating other points made.
On a quick perusal of some of the previous postings there are some factually incorrect statements, but here is my feel for the points on the Avidyne versus Garmin G1000 (Integrated version, as per Columbia 350, 400).
As always, some issues are a matter of opinion and I recognise that. I fly on a regular basis both G1000 (integrated) and Avidyne.
Avidyne
Advantage:
Easier to learn, about two/three days with no prior prep work or glass experience.
Disadvantages:
Not an LRU system (a bit of screen fails the whole lot comes out !).
Avidyne support leaves a lot to be desired.
Avidyne have just lost Eclipse and Javelin contracts !
In flight a screen failure, is that, no data transfer to the other screen.
Non digital autopilot.
Some of the cockpit is Avidyne, some is Garmin some is S-Tec etc
G1000 (Integrated).
Disadvantage:
Four days instruction, - for someone with no glass experience plus approx 10 hours prior home study (from CD).
Advantages:
Integrated cockpit, Transponder, A/P, ADF and DME on the screen.
Digital autopilot is superior.
Screen failure just means the press of a button for a ‘composite screen’, on either side.
The ‘composite mode’ can be used for dual/training.
The digital autopilot can do ‘FL change’, climb at an indicated airspeed.
‘Ready pad’ FMS keypad.
G1000 will not allow the aircraft to be stalled or o/sped with A/P engaged.
Garmin, excellent support
Let me stress this. There is nothing wrong with an Avidyne system, just that I think the Garmin outweighs it by far.
The Columbia comes of course with the option of both G1000 and Avidyne, - your choice.
There is a good section on the Columbia website, www.flycolumbia.com called “whitepapers” (on the top right of the home page) which, also gives a good insight into the difference between a Turbocharged engine and a turbo-normalised one !!!
On a quick perusal of some of the previous postings there are some factually incorrect statements, but here is my feel for the points on the Avidyne versus Garmin G1000 (Integrated version, as per Columbia 350, 400).
As always, some issues are a matter of opinion and I recognise that. I fly on a regular basis both G1000 (integrated) and Avidyne.
Avidyne
Advantage:
Easier to learn, about two/three days with no prior prep work or glass experience.
Disadvantages:
Not an LRU system (a bit of screen fails the whole lot comes out !).
Avidyne support leaves a lot to be desired.
Avidyne have just lost Eclipse and Javelin contracts !
In flight a screen failure, is that, no data transfer to the other screen.
Non digital autopilot.
Some of the cockpit is Avidyne, some is Garmin some is S-Tec etc
G1000 (Integrated).
Disadvantage:
Four days instruction, - for someone with no glass experience plus approx 10 hours prior home study (from CD).
Advantages:
Integrated cockpit, Transponder, A/P, ADF and DME on the screen.
Digital autopilot is superior.
Screen failure just means the press of a button for a ‘composite screen’, on either side.
The ‘composite mode’ can be used for dual/training.
The digital autopilot can do ‘FL change’, climb at an indicated airspeed.
‘Ready pad’ FMS keypad.
G1000 will not allow the aircraft to be stalled or o/sped with A/P engaged.
Garmin, excellent support
Let me stress this. There is nothing wrong with an Avidyne system, just that I think the Garmin outweighs it by far.
The Columbia comes of course with the option of both G1000 and Avidyne, - your choice.
There is a good section on the Columbia website, www.flycolumbia.com called “whitepapers” (on the top right of the home page) which, also gives a good insight into the difference between a Turbocharged engine and a turbo-normalised one !!!
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
From: Maders UK
SB - which LoPresti mods do you have?
IO, Roy LoPresti (of LoPresti Speed Merchants) was Mooney's chief aerodynamicist /designer for a while and the long body Mooney cowls/airframes bear many of his touches.
Little things like having the nav/pos/strobes on the wingtips faired in, tightly gap sealed ailerons/elevators and the laminar flow wing all add a few knots.
My TKS system slows the aircraft down by 5-10 KTS but flying in Northern Europe I wouldn't be without it.
SB
IO, Roy LoPresti (of LoPresti Speed Merchants) was Mooney's chief aerodynamicist /designer for a while and the long body Mooney cowls/airframes bear many of his touches.
Little things like having the nav/pos/strobes on the wingtips faired in, tightly gap sealed ailerons/elevators and the laminar flow wing all add a few knots.
My TKS system slows the aircraft down by 5-10 KTS but flying in Northern Europe I wouldn't be without it.
SB
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
From: UK
Four days instruction, - for someone with no glass experience plus approx 10 hours prior home study (from CD).
From experience I would far rather go with as many hours as you can on Garmin's PC sim - it maybe cheap (well free actually) but it does the job, and about 10 to 20 hours in the aircraft. That is the point you will be comfortable IFR / IMC with a diversion procedure.
Not tried the integrated digital autopilot - that I shall look forward to seeing - it might know whether to turn left or right on the base leg!!
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
From: LONDON
Fuji.
Agree entirely re the Garmin sim, cannot get enough and it just makes the transition more relaxed and enjoyable. Not found the need yet to do above 10hours on the differences training but will happen some day, and can be facilitated.
The G1000 - integrated - recognises left and right on the base and will do a little more, including pre-selecting ILS frequency and auto ident.
The digital 700 A/P is much crisper in op than the non digital.
Agree entirely re the Garmin sim, cannot get enough and it just makes the transition more relaxed and enjoyable. Not found the need yet to do above 10hours on the differences training but will happen some day, and can be facilitated.
The G1000 - integrated - recognises left and right on the base and will do a little more, including pre-selecting ILS frequency and auto ident.
The digital 700 A/P is much crisper in op than the non digital.
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
From: East Sussex
150kt cruiser
Ok, you want a Jet A1, six seater go places machine, ok try looking at a Comp Air 7 or 8, it looks like a stretched Maule on steriods !! Will be STOL and fast and would like one myself !! You can see one or two on trade-a-plane, or Barnstormers, failing that goggle it.
Regards Will.
Regards Will.
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
From: Yorkshire
Very interesting indeed, Will : only problems would appear to be (a) it's a kit and (b) they appear to have misread the assembly instructions, and superglued the nosewheel to the tail by mistake ... 
FF
FF
!! But that looks plane ugly !! They are also factory built. Great fun flew one in FL last year.Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
Here are some fuel flow figures for my TB20
6000ft +5C QNH1036 23/2400
GPH(US) / IAS(KT)
10 125
10.5 135
11 138
11.5 144
12 147
12.5 148
13 150
14 150
Flowmeter error: better than 1% (checked after test flight)
ASI error: approx 1kt (measured by 3-heading GPS method)
Peak EGT around 11.5GPH.
Weight: approx 10% under MTOW i.e. 1260kg.
Hard to beat.
6000ft +5C QNH1036 23/2400
GPH(US) / IAS(KT)
10 125
10.5 135
11 138
11.5 144
12 147
12.5 148
13 150
14 150
Flowmeter error: better than 1% (checked after test flight)
ASI error: approx 1kt (measured by 3-heading GPS method)
Peak EGT around 11.5GPH.
Weight: approx 10% under MTOW i.e. 1260kg.
Hard to beat.
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
From: London
Interesting discussion. At the higher end of the price range (ie. DA42, SR22) I would be very tempted by a used Malibu.
I've only flown a few hours in these. A bit cramped for the very tall pilot.
The Lyc engines have been troublesome, but most should have had all the ADs done.
...but for travel across Europe, none of the normally pressurised singles compare IMO. Quiet, pressurised, air-conditioned comfort. Cabin class seating, airstair door. Known-icing. The range is over 1000nm IIRC.
rgds421C
I've only flown a few hours in these. A bit cramped for the very tall pilot.
The Lyc engines have been troublesome, but most should have had all the ADs done.
...but for travel across Europe, none of the normally pressurised singles compare IMO. Quiet, pressurised, air-conditioned comfort. Cabin class seating, airstair door. Known-icing. The range is over 1000nm IIRC.
rgds421C
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
From: Surrey UK
My vote would be for one of the later Commanders (114B, 115). 150kts cruise, loads of space, built like a tank etc. The factory has at long last got its licence to start production again so hopefully spares will cease to be a problem.