|
|
|
|
Do you want to beef up your Internet weather briefs? Reserve your copy of our newest CD, Internet Wx Brief Roadmap. A Comparison of the Columbia 400 and the TN Cirrus SR22
By Scott C. Dennstaedt, CFI-IA & Columbia Factory Instructor Updated 8/28/07 Congratulations! You are in the market for an airplane and you’ve got a tough decision – do I buy a Columbia (formally known as Lancair) or do I buy a Cirrus? Regardless of your final decision, new or used, Columbia and Cirrus both build an excellent single-engine piston aircraft. But as a Columbia Factory Instructor and former Cirrus Standardized Instructor, I am able to offer this unique prop-to-prop comparison. Much of this discussion will also apply to the SR20 and Columbia 350. Disclaimer
This comparison represents my own personal observation through my 2,500+ hours of flight instruction and flying experience in both aircraft and does not reflect the opinion of The Columbia Aircraft Manufacturing (CAM) or Cirrus Design Corporation or any of their agents. It is for instructional benefit only for those pilots trying to choose between buying a Columbia versus buying a Cirrus. Please note, while comprehensive, this is not a complete comparison. What’s The Difference? Viewing these two aircraft from a distance, the Columbia 400 and the SR22 have a very similar design. Peeking through the window you will also see a very similar interior design with nearly identical avionics. (Columbia now offers a Garmin G1000 avionics package which is not addressed in this article.) From a flying perspective they have similar flying characteristics with some important exceptions to be explained later. Both aircraft are made out of composite material over most of the airframe. Cirrus chose to build their flaps, ailerons, elevator and rudder out of aluminum, whereas Columbia uses a composite material just about everywhere.
Both are a fixed tricycle gear, four-person aircraft and both use a Teledyne Continental Motor 310 hp fuel injected engine. The Columbia 400 uses the same engine except that it is turbocharged (twin turbochargers). The Cirrus has a turbo-normalized engine as an option. As a result, both are considered high performance aircraft, but are not considered complex aircraft by FAA definition. See FAR 61.31(e) and (f). Utility v. Normal The Columbia 400 has been certified under the utility category, whereas the Cirrus is certified under the normal category. This means that the Columbia is about 30% stronger than a normal category aircraft. See Tom Bowen's response to a Flying magazine article for a more detailed description of the advantages of a utility category aircraft. Controls – Side Stick versus Side Yoke
Both aircraft have dual “side” controls. The pilot’s control is on the left side of the cockpit designed to be controlled by pilot’s left hand. The other control is on the right side of the cockpit and is designed to be controlled by the copilot’s right hand. Both Cirrus and Columbia have an implementation that is intuitive and easy to learn. Cirrus controls are more representative of a standard yoke and the Columbia is more representative of a traditional “stick.” As a result, the Columbia provides a more intuitive and much smoother command authority without the tendency to over control the aircraft while making changes to pitch and/or heading. The biggest mistake I see from new Cirrus pilots is the tendency to over control the aircraft especially during landing. Avionics
Columbia has a much larger instrument panel that extends the full width of the cockpit. The Cirrus instrument panel is about three-quarters the size of the Columbia panel. The Avidyne Entegra Primary Flight Display (PFD) and Avidyne EX5000C Multifunction Display (MFD) are standard equipment in both aircraft as are dual Garmin GNS 430s. There are two major differences. First, Columbia chose to mount the big screen displays in portrait mode whereas Cirrus mounted them in landscape mode. This has two advantages for Columbia.
First, the Columbia implementation allows plenty of space for the required backup airspeed, altimeter and attitude indicator to be installed between the two displays. This is a more familiar location for the traditional round “steam gauge” instruments and allows the engine instruments to be installed on the pilot’s side where they are much easier to scan on a routine basis. Due to the limited panel space on the Cirrus, they mounted the engine gauges on the right side of the instrument panel. Second, the MFD is oriented to easily view instrument approach charts. Avidyne created an option called CMax that allows the pilot to select and view Jeppesen geo-referenced instrument approach charts on the MFD. The portrait mode makes the instrument panel a bit “taller,” but is better suited for the Jeppesen electronic instrument approach charts. As mentioned above, Columbia now offers both the Avidyne/Garmin/Stec combination as well as the G1000 avionics. Having used both avionics packages I can say for sure that you can become fluent more quickly in the Avidyne solution even though the Garmin G1000 solution provides more capability. This is important when bad things happen and flight fluency is critical. In the Cirrus implementation these backup instruments are located down in front of the pilot between the pilot’s knees (called the bolster panel). The Cirrus location of the backup instruments means lots of up and down head movements when these become the primary instruments after a failure of the PFD. Up and down head movements will increase the risk for spatial disorientation when flying under instrument conditions.
From the Instrument Flying Handbook (FAA-H-8083-15): It is important that pilots develop an instrument cross-check or scan that involves minimal head movement. Additionally, the copilot (or instructor) has a difficult time viewing the backup instruments from the right seat and is further exacerbated due to parallax error. Placing these instruments in the center of the instrument panel reduces head movements and allows a right seat pilot to have a better view. Moreover, the altimeter is more difficult to set properly being in this location and is nearly impossible to set from the right seat. Even flying in VFR conditions, the location of these instruments complicates landings while attempting to reference the bolster panel instruments. The airspeed indicator is a key element to a good approach and landing. Having to move your head up and down to reference the airspeed indicator during an approach to land has been a difficult task to master by those new to the Cirrus and must be practiced frequently. Pilots that are new to the airplane and pilots that don’t practice PFD-out scenarios often will likely suffer from the effects described above. I know from teaching in these two aircraft, Columbia pilots have little difficulty landing with the PFD failed or flying under instrument conditions without a working PFD including the approach to land scenario. Flight Director and Autopilot Master Switch
In a technically advanced aircraft a flight director is a must. Columbia includes a flight director with their Avidyne PFD instantiation and Cirrus is now offering this as option. Cirrus has no autopilot master switch, however. In the event the autopilot disconnect switch located on the stick doesn’t do its job in the Cirrus, you are faced with locating the autopilot circuit breaker all while you are overpowering the autopilot to remain in control. In the Columbia, if the autopilot disconnect switch fails to disconnect, it is as simple as reaching up and turning the autopilot master switch to the off position. The Columbia autopilot master switch located above the backup instruments in the center of the instrument panel has four positions: Off, AP, AP/FD and FD. You can fly with the autopilot and no flight director (AP), or fly with the autopilot and have the flight director displayed (AP/FD) or fly by hand using the flight director as command guidance (FD). Center Console
I like the center console design of the Cirrus over the Columbia. On the Columbia the throttle, prop and mixture controls get in the way of the Garmin GMA 340 audio panel which is tucked under the throttle quadrant. It is also a bit difficult to reach the mixture when belted in. I am also a fan of a lever throttle in the Cirrus over the push-pull throttle, prop and mixture found on many of the Cessna aircraft. Columbia has recently redesigned their center console for the aircraft that come equipped with the G1000 including a new Vernier-style throttle. The introduction of the G1000 has seriously changed the center console since much is integrated into the instrument panel. The new READY Pad data entry device sits below the armrest between the pilot and co-pilot. The jury is still out on whether or not this will data entry easier or harder. Safety Belts The Columbia three-point safety belts are a bit difficult to buckle and just don’t feel as secure as the four-point safety belt system in the Cirrus. Both seat belt systems have a tendency to restrict access to the instrument panel by prematurely locking. This is especially true as an instructor sitting in the right seat. Cirrus safety belts on some of the aircraft tend to loosen and ride up the body toward the chest. I find myself constantly tightening the straps every 20 or 30 minutes. Seats The front seats in the Columbia have been redesigned in their latest sport seat version. The older seats were on a track that will move about 7 inches back to front. This is not quite enough for shorter-legged pilots. I am not a tall person (6’) and have shorter legs. To be comfortable, I’d like the seat to slide a bit more forward. The real issue in the Columbia is headroom to the side. I use David Clark headsets and often bang my head on the side of the cabin. To sit lower you must pull up the seat bottom cushion that is attached via industrial-strength Velcro and reattach by moving the seat forward or backward. It is a lot of work to get it right and don’t try to adjust it while in flight. This has been improved in the new sport seat design. Even in the Cirrus I have to recline the seat back a bit in to avoid having my headset hit the side of the cockpit since I have to pull my seat forward. Interior Size and comfort The Cirrus is a bit roomier than the Columbia. The Cirrus cabin is about two inches wider. If you are a large person you will likely be more comfortable in the Cirrus. Even when the front seat is pushed all the way back, there is ample leg room for the passengers in the back seat. Columbia passengers would be uncomfortable in this situation. The baggage compartment is a bit larger in the Columbia and it includes a shelf to store soft luggage such as an airplane cover. Electric trim
Neither of the aircraft has a manual trim wheel. Both use electric trim for pitch and aileron that are controlled with a hat switch on the stick. Cirrus overloads the function of the hat switch on the side yoke to double as electric aileron and pitch trim and as an autopilot disconnect (push straight down). It is inevitable that when you push down to disconnect the autopilot you will often disturb the trim. Columbia, on the other hand, uses a separate disconnect switch on the stick. So there’s no chance to change the autopilot’s great job of trimming the airplane and the disconnect is much easier on the thumb as compared to the hat switch on the Cirrus. The trim system on the Columbia is superior to the Cirrus in a couple of ways. Trim indications on the Cirrus are based on visual markings that are often difficult to judge (especially aileron trim). Columbia uses a cross of little lights (LEDs) to indicate an in or out of trim indication. When the center light is green, the aircraft is essentially trimmed with only minor adjustment needed. If you need a little trim up for takeoff, just hold the trim switch back a bit and you will see a second green light just above the center one. If you are out of trim (over trim scenario), a blue light appears in the direction(s) that are out of trim. The biggest issue is trim sensitivity. The Cirrus trim is very sensitive and hard to fine tune. Owners will boast of that magic “flick” that is needed to get it just right. Add a distraction or secondary task and an inexperienced Cirrus pilot flying by hand will quickly deviate from altitude and/or heading even to the point of an unusual attitude recovery. I can appreciate why Cirrus pilots rely so heavily on their autopilot. Columbia’s electric trim is also a bit sensitive, but not nearly as sensitive and frustrating as the Cirrus electric trim. If both manufacturers added a trim wheel, it would solve this problem. Circuit breaker panel The circuit breakers on the Columbia are easier to access in flight being right next to the pilot on the left side. On the Cirrus the bank of circuit breakers are near the pilot’s right leg are nearly impossible to read and difficult to access in flight. Many Cirrus pilots have installed collars or other indicating devices on the breakers in order to quickly identify key breakers in the event of a failure such as runaway trim or an errant autopilot. At first glance the circuit breaker panel location does not seem to make much of an issue. But in an emergency scenario, seconds can make a world of difference. The pilot may not have enough time to pull out a diagram of the breaker panel to identify the appropriate breaker. Dual Alternators
Both aircraft have dual alternators and dual batteries. The Cirrus has a 60-amp primary alternator and a 20-amp backup alternator. Columbia opted to use both 60-amp alternators. If the 60-amp alternator was to fail in the Cirrus, you would ultimately lose a few important systems such flaps, pitch and aileron trim, MFD and deice just to name a few. In the Columbia, you simply isolate the faulty alternator and hit a cross-tie switch. The entire electrical system can be powered with no load shedding necessary on the remaining alternator which will also continue to charge both batteries. One goodie that I love with respect to the Columbia is that you can start the engine on either battery or start it on both batteries when it is very cold. Starting I am amazed at how difficult these planes are to start. Even my 11-year-old vehicle starts on the first try every time without any fuss, warm or cold. It may be just a training issue. However, pilots new to the airplane are often surprised by the starting difficulty, especially hot starts. For both aircraft, there are “tricks” one must learn in order to start the airplane depending on whether or not the engine is hot, cold or just warm. Following the guidelines in the POH do not always lead to a successful engine start which may involve unnecessary cranking of the starter. With the Columbia, running the boost pump (vapor suppress) for a minute or two with the mixture and throttle closed (no primer) provides the best approach for a hot start. Throttle and Prop Controls
Cirrus uses a single lever to control the throttle and prop. Cirrus wants to build an aircraft that is simple to fly, so combining the throttle and the propeller control makes good sense. But coming from someone who drives a 5-speed vehicle, I like having control over the pitch of the prop blades; honestly, it really doesn’t involve a whole lot more work. Flaps Both aircraft have a similar flap design with one major difference. The Columbia flaps retract or extend very slowly whereas Cirrus flaps change positions much more rapidly.
Retracting flaps on departure in a Cirrus typically causes the aircraft to sink (or to lose climb rate) as the loss of lift happens quickly. To counter this quick loss of lift, you must add a fair amount of immediate back pressure on the controls to compensate. This is especially important on a departure procedure The effect of a rapid flap extension is ballooning. Flaps are typically extended on downwind and just before the final approach fix just before descending. Adding the first flap setting in the Cirrus normally involves also adding a significant amount of down trim while hand flying. The autopilot normally takes a bit longer to react and it is not uncommon to see 200 or sometimes 300 feet excursions. The autopilot can easily overcompensate when this happens creating an up and down oscillation as the autopilot attempts to recover after the balloon. Obviously this is not desirable, especially when flaps are extended on the glide slope. As a result, adding flaps prior to glide slope intercept is very important. Ballooning is barely detectable in the Columbia due to the slower flap extension. Speed Brakes
Both the Columbia and Cirrus are difficult to slow down given their very slippery wing surface. While power management is paramount, having the ability to quickly slow down at cruise speeds requires a major power reduction in the Cirrus. Columbia offers optional speed brakes that can slow the plane down quickly. They can be deployed at any airspeed below VNE. Retraction of the speed brakes is either controlled by the pilot or in the Columbia 350 it is also controlled with the rudder limiter. The Columbia 400 does not have a rudder limiter; the stall warning horn is used to retract the speed brakes. Also see an article about speed brakes written by Rich Nagle, "Low down on go down." Doors and Seals The Columbia doors open like a traditional gull wing door. If a door were to open in flight there may be a risk of it departing from the plane. Given the secure latching system on the Columbia, I don’t believe this to be a serious issue. On taxi in the warm weather, Columbia makes it very easy to hold the door slightly open with a strap that fits through the pilot’s left arm. The doors on the Cirrus have been problematic causing the owners a lot of grief closing the door. The good news is that after a couple of trips to the service center, the doors can be adjusted to work better. Even after Cirrus redesigned the doors for the SR2x/G2, the problem did not go away. You still have to push on the top and bottom of both doors while inside of the airplane to be sure the door is properly latched since there isn’t a warning indicator. Some of these doors were even noted to have popped open in flight. The Columbia doors are much easier to close. They are engineered to close securely on the first try. A panel light tells you if the doors are not closed. Columbia is also equipped with inflatable door seals. A pump is activated and the seals in the pilot, copilot and baggage doors are filled with air. This adds significantly to noise reduction in the cockpit. I would like to see Columbia move its passenger side door lock. I continue to pinch my finger when latching the door from the inside. The baggage door in the Columbia is very well engineered, however. It uses a dual lock system that doesn’t permit you to leave the baggage door open accidentally. Landing Both aircraft have a very flat landing site picture and very similar approach speeds. Elevator authority at slow airspeeds quickly erodes in the Columbia. This means that it is very hard to over-flare the Columbia in the landing even with a full aft center of gravity. You will typically run out of elevator before you reach the point of a tail strike. With too much airspeed, both aircraft tend to balloon very easy even with small changes in pitch during the flare. In the Columbia, especially the 350, I like to land the aircraft with the takeoff flap setting and speed brakes deployed, except when landing on a short field where I will use full flaps. Landing Lights There is both a taxi and landing light on the wing of the Columbia. The Cirrus only has a single light above the nose gear. Aural Warnings Columbia has integrated a voice warning system whenever prescribed alerts are encountered. These warnings include Door Open, Alternator Off, Fuel Valve, and Fuel Pump On. These are tied to the red light conditions on the annunciator panel. Anti-ice/De-ice Cirrus currently offers a TKS anti-ice and de-ice system. TKS is one of the best deice/anti-ice systems available. Columbia has recently added a Therma-wing solution, called E-Vade, which will require a larger alternator. Neither system is certified into known icing conditions although the TKS solution will be better suited for very serious icing encounters. Runback is a serious problem in the Columbia aircraft outfitted with E-Vade. An encounter with freezing drizzle or large supercooled drops from a cumulus cloud will not be protected from runback allowing the area behind the protected region to continue to build ice. Service Centers Cirrus has Columbia beat here. There are more authorized repair facilities that are available to Cirrus pilots. I suspect that until Columbia gains ground in terms of the numbers of aircraft in service, you won’t likely many new authorized Columbia service centers. BRS and Spin Certification Of course, one major difference between Cirrus and Columbia is that Cirrus has not been through any formal spin certification. The Cirrus POH only allows for a pilot to activate the Ballistic Recovery System (BRS) known as the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS) once the airplane departs from controlled flight. Some Cirrus owners will tell you that they didn’t buy a Cirrus because of CAPS. However, many have purchased a Cirrus for this very reason or for the edification of their spouse. A Cirrus has much greater elevator authority than a Columbia and a power-off stall is more abrupt when compared to the Columbia which has extremely good aileron authority and handling characteristics in the stall. CAPS is a great option to have in a few specific scenarios. Even with those scenarios, the pilot must activate CAPS swiftly in accordance with the procedures and restrictions in the POH. In other words, the aircraft must be operated within demonstrated CAPS deployment guidelines to include an airspeed and altitude and the decision must be made early. If the aircraft is operating below the minimum demonstrated CAPS deployment altitude or operating above the maximum CAPS deployment airspeed, there is a possibility that CAPS may fail to deploy properly. While still under NTSB investigation, the latter appears to have happened with the pilot activating CAPS above the maximum deployment airspeed after an icing encounter (this plane had TKS anti-ice capability according to records). Recently, an SR20 hit a NYC building at the 30th floor in VFR conditions resulting in two deaths. While this accident is still under investigation, CAPS appears not to have been activated. Did CAPS fail? Was this another case of not using the system soon enough? If CAPS was activated in this highly populated and busy city location, would there be a risk to people on the surface as a 2500 pound aircraft descended under the parachute? Was this part of the PIC's decision not to activate CAPS? There have been several catastrophic engine failures in the Cirrus and the pilots of these aircraft all chose not to activate CAPS and made it safely to an airport. These pilots quickly weighed their options and chose the best option at the time. While CAPS was available, these pilots had instinctively utilized their flight training experience and chose not to deploy CAPS. As of this writing, there have been 9 activations of CAPS. In 6 of the 9 deployments, no injuries were reported by the pilot or passengers. In 3 of the 9 CAPS activations (33%) resulted in 4 serious injuries (required surgery and hospitalization) and two deaths. However, two of the deployments resulted in an impact with water. All occupants of these water crashes suffered back injuries and one pilot died as a result of the impact. Therefore, a CAPS deployment could result in serious injuries including death to the pilot and/or passengers. The FAA is still investigating these accidents. Despite these “saves” Cirrus has been plagued with a significant number of fatal accidents (20 fatal accidents resulting in 35 deaths including a Cirrus Design test pilot accident) even though Cirrus has a renown life-saving system such as CAPS. Several of the Cirrus accidents were classified as controlled flight into terrain (CFIT) where CAPS is obviously not an option. These accidents have driven up the insurance rates and training requirements for Cirrus aircraft. Many Cirrus pilots are now required by their insurance company to undergo annual recurrent training in addition to the Cirrus transition training required before they can fly as pilot in command. While there are more Cirrus aircraft in the sky (3,000+ Cirrus and over 550+ Columbia), Columbia has suffered four fatal accidents (two Columbia 400s, one Columbia 300 and one Columbia 350) in their production aircraft and it does not employ a BRS. Simple math shows the accident rate is nearly the same for Cirrus and Columbia production aircraft. At this time I don’t have a good explanation of why there is such a discrepancy in fatal accidents given the Cirrus employs a life-saving feature such as the BRS. I would expect to see less fatal accidents in a Cirrus airplane. Therefore, if you take away all the "saves" in the airplane, the Cirrus might have a few more fatalities, but it is also be possible that many of the CAPS activations may have been unnecessary. In other words, if you take away CAPS, would these pilots have been able to safely land the airplane? Obviously we'll never know, but I suspect that a few of them would have been recoverable. In addition to this compilation, please also read Scott’s IFR magazine articles Pilots Who Fly In Glass Houses and Hail Columbia For Hot IFR. If you found this article informative, check out The Weather Report, featuring our newest innovation, the Internet Wx Brief Roadmap. Copyright © 2009 Chesapeake Aviation Training, Incorporated. You are visitor number:
|
|
See our
contact page
if you have any questions about the products or services offered by Chesapeake Aviation Training,
Inc.
|
