…or you can just private message him.
He’s not AT Yahoo.com, he’s at Yahoo Canada!
Canadamooney at yahoo.ca
Obviously (or not!) substitute @ for at and remove the spaces.
Sheesh!
When is the Acclaim going to be certified?
It was certified just a few days ago. They are still working on the TKS certification, I believe.
I thought the same too but Cirrus turbo beat columbia turbo 4th Q.
There are a few reasons why Cirrus sells more planes. However, the number one by far is the parachute. Start talking to non-pilots, and you will know why. It makes a HUGE difference to them. They think that it takes almost all the worries away. It doesn’t, but if you want your friends and family to enjoy your plane with you, this feature is priceless.
I doubt many Cirrus owners tell thier passengers that statistically they are no better off in a Cirrus. I wouldn’t.
There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
I don’t know what statistics you speak of, but remember that just because a certain statistic says that the Cirrus isn’t safe or is no better than others doesn’t necessarily mean it is true, especially if the competency of the pilot isn’t considered.
The competency of the pilot is assumed to be the same over the whole fleet. You could statistically beat that out of the data, but it would be really hard to do. If you won’t believe any numbers, then you might as well not have a discussion.
The COPA numbers are really meaningful here (where non COPA members are having a hugely disproportionate share of the accidents). I would love to have other groups do similar comparisons. Still, I doubt that the 182 would have nearly as high a ratio of members as Cirrus enjoys.
We won’t know about the real benefits of BRS until we have a good fleet of planes that have them equipped and not equipped on the same model. The plan to make them affordable retrofits on Cessna’s somehow failed, ruining our best possible test bed.
Mooneys would likely be a good subject, and an easy retrofit, except that it would slow the planes down. Good luck selling that to us Mooniacs 
The same can be said of those that just believe every statistic given to them.
True, if you believe every statistic you likely couldn’t learn anything either. They are often outright contradictory.
My all time favorite was a study that NPR did a show on. The results said that men averaged many more sex partners than women. I drove along trying to figure out how that could be possible. Of course, the only difference would be in the accounting of homosexual relationships. The researchers, from a well known university, had failed to account for the participants not telling the truth.
If I find a statistic questionable, I usually find that the methodology is not fully disclosed or flawed or that the source is not objective.
In response to the post regarding the yoke in the Mooney being a potential safety hazard, I hope you will consider this: In the Mooney, you are surrounded by a welded steel tube cage, not a bunch of eggshell thin composite material.
I live in the Owens Valley region in South Eastern California. Recently we have had several accidents involving the parachute equipped Cirrus. In one incident the Cirrus pilots departed controlled flight in the landing pattern. There are numerous similar incidents in the NTSB database regarding the cirrus and fatal accidents where the parachute did not save lives. The reason that most passengers are comforted knowing the cirrus has a parachute is because they know nothing of aviation. I would take my chances dead sticking any Mooney ANY DAY over the cirrus silk ride “get outta jail free card.”
Around the same time that the cirrus incident occurred, a 14 year old disgruntled teen ager stole his dad’s 1965 Mooney M-20E from Big Bear airport in Southern CA. He and a friend had an ill-fated plan to escape the rigors of teen age life and flee to Mexico in the Mooney. The boys forgot to check the fuel gauge and flamed out not long after departing the big bear airport. The boy was able to attempt a dead stick landing the the desert East of big bear, but stalled the aircraft far above the terrain and “lawn darted” into the terrain below (cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/ … 7295.shtml). Both boys walked away. I would offer that had that airplane been anything less than a Mooney then the results would have been far, far worse.
Ok, next lets talk about something much less serious, ramp appeal. If you haven’t figured it out yet I own a Mooney (modified 1965 E model, 165Kts on 9.5 gph). I flew my girlfriend up to Mammoth Lakes airport on our way to go skiing (yes, the skis and all our stuff fit in the old Mooney). When we got out there were numerous cirruss parked on the ramp. Cirrus often times parks an airframe in the village in Mammoth during sales drives and sometimes gives rides from the local airport. As we were unloading our skis my girlfriend looked at the cirrus parked next to us and said “that thing looks goofy, is it a trainer?” In cirrus’s defense, I responded that it was a relatively new design that was made out of revolutionary materials and offered much better performance the most older metal airframes. She asked why they couldn’t “make it look cooler.”
Seriously, I really love what cirrus and columbia are doing in terms of bringing new technology to general aviation, BUT my gods-honest opinion is that the columbia and the cirrus just look stupid and ungainly. When I see a picture of a cirrus of columbia in flight it seems to me as if there are 3 metal flagpoles waving signs below the airplane (referring to the “down and welded” gear) that say “HI, I’m a low time pilot with a big wallet, I have no idea what I’m doing aside from achieving a high cruise speed and burning lots-o-gas!!!”
Take that with a grain of salt, maybe I’m just upset that this technology wasn’t available when I learned to fly!
As a final serious thought, I would add that most of the fatal cirrus accidents that I have read about seem to involve a pilot who has got in way, way over his head. Perhaps instead of “which airplane goes faster” these pilots would have been better suited by selecting an airplane that matched their skill level.
I would much prefer to see cirrus and columbia continue to offer a fixed gear airplane like the 350 and SR-20, and make the high end, high performance machines retractible. Not only would they look cooler, the would go way faster (you could finally blow the doors off the mooney, ref. the lancair homebuilts) but the airplanes wouldn’t look stupid (in my humble opinion) AND I would wager that you would have fewer fatal crashes in retractable performance machines because pilots would be forces (just like back in “the day”) to gain the proper training before being allowed to fly the high performance machines.
Just my opinion.
In most composites, you are not surrounded by an eggshell thin structure. I would have a hard time deciding whether I would rather be a crash dummy in the Mooney or the Diamond Star. I think I would lean for the Diamond Star. The closest to egg shells are the semi monocoque aluminum designs made by most everyone in the biz.
I really don’t like the term “dead stick”. I suppose it comes from planes with hydraulics? At any rate, if the engine is already dead then we have too much morbidity involved already. Let’s “glide” her in. Sounds much better! 8)
The expression “dead stick” started out in the early days of aviation as a description of the way the stick felt when the engine cut out. I think it’s a great description of what happens without power. You can “glide her in” without power but you will have a “dead stick” if you don’t do it right.
for awhile now, I’ve been evaulating my next aircraft purchase. I currently own a 2005 SR22. After 450 hours, it’s been reliable and dependable. Because I wanted to try the Columbia I’d been leaning towards buying a new Columbia 400.
In doing so, I’ve been closely following some of the goings on of the Club Columbia Forums. Reading what the owners of those planes are saying is turning away buyers. There’s people out there forfeiting their deposits. The owners are using words like “class-action” because the customer service is so bad. One guy has been down for 5 weeks waiting for a battery.
It sounds like Columbia is the Jaguar of this century. The site is www.lancairpilots.org.
cirrus is no better (at least from the duluth factory). Cirrus cares more about selling planes than satisfying a customer.
I really wasn’t trying to turn this into another one of these debates. I really like the Columbia airplanes and I want them to be successful. However, when you make 600k investement, you want to find other happy customers. In my 2 years of Cirrus ownership and COPA membership, I’ve had only positive experiences with Cirrus and the other owners. Most Cirrus owners I’ve met are on their 2nd or 3rd plane and to me, customer loyaylty means more then any marketing or statistics.
I think Columbia has a real winner of an airplane. But alot of great products have failed over the years because of crappy management.
The expression “dead stick” started out in the early days of aviation as a description of the way the stick felt when the engine cut out. I think it’s a great description of what happens without power. You can “glide her in” without power but you will have a “dead stick” if you don’t do it right.
That is not quite true, The term in fact did come from the early days but was reffering to the wooden prop, or stick. So when the prop was not moving it was said to be dead. But hey, i’m sure there are many stories.
looks like columbia is in trouble. 185 workers “temporarly” fired. Looks like they may be become the next mooney; everyone afraid to buy their airplanes (depreciation if company goes out of business).
flycolumbia.com/.docs/record … 2/pg/10238
(click the here link)
Unfortunately for Columbia, they are not capable of becoming the next Mooney. Mooney has such a large fleet, that someone will always be willing to build the parts, so there is no real danger there.
I am not so sure that Columbia has enough of a fleet there to ensure that becoming the parts manufacturer would be something someone would do. The bigger problem would be the parts distribution that seems to be missing for the Columbias. If my Mooney needs a part, I rarely have to get it from the factory. Usually, some distributor or shop closer by has one already. One exception was a part for the EFIS-AP interface that only Mooney had, still, it was overnighted, and I could have flown without it.
I don’t think Mooney sales were hurt much by the bankruptcies, and I don’t think Columbia is in that bad of shape. I don’t have any inside scoop on that though.
At any rate, both planes could likely handle a version of the new Thielert engine, and that could sell a lot of planes.
OTOH, I wouldn’t be looking to buy ANYONES new planes until the FAA issues are decided. Used would be a much safer bet.
“No one’s property is safe while the legislature is in session” - Sign on my school headmaster’s office door.
I would like to know how’s the sevice on the Columbia and the Insurance expense? I’m looking at buying a Columbia over Cirrus and Mooney. I own a Cessna T-182-2004 Thanks,