Yes, I agree, too.
Naturally it seems a taildragger, which I enjoy to fly immensly, would be the best solution.
Less drag by missing out completely a wheel that only is in the way anyway.
The use of your brakes and rudder for directional ground control.
But it has been proven that pilots buy tricycle aircraft and lately tricycle aircraft that are steerable like a taildragger.
But with the added drag! 
I saw a Bonanza in a hangar one day a while ago, with gear being overhauled and in a million pieces spread across the hangar. The bill must’ve been phenomenal. It was really something to see and I wouldn’t want to be in that situation, as an owner.
I was hangared at a KA/TBM facility for 10 years and apparently this is in the KA MM. It would be billed at some five-figure amount, but a KA owner (well, the sort this firm had as customers) just pays any bill. Complete strip, NDT, repaint. Not sure how often…
LG doesn’t have to have that many parts…
Hmmm, so a plane that would benefit most from rectractable gear is a sleek airframe with big tundra tires … travel fast and efficiently, but with plenty of grass/wild places to land … just have to imagine how to fit those big Alaska tundra tires into a sleek airframe, ha ha
Michael wrote:
So I bought it. Paid 60% of the price of a comparably fitted & timed Ovation.
WOW. That is a very good deal I’d say. Don’t blame you that you took it!
Michael wrote:
That evening I did a side-by-side comparison of the POHs. He was right: the Columbia 300 goes faster, further, with more load and more doors and more cabin than an Ovation.
That surprises me (particularly the range). But it shows that it really is a very good idea to thoroughly read through all the POH’s e.t.c. in order to make an educated buy. But a quick look up sais you are absolutely right. Both planes are almost identical in performance (I suppose I must have had the Monroy LR tanks in mind with the Ovation) and speed, as well as consumption.
Michael wrote:
The Lancair Columbia / Ttx is the most over-looked plane on the market, largely eclipsed by the commercial success of the Cirrus.
I fully agree. Particularly the 300. I never really looked at it, it is so rare. But I have to say, the figures are very impressive indeed.
I suppose the Cirrus marketing, which was and is probably the best campaign in recent GA history, has proven once more that buying airplanes is not a rational act. However, I think Columbia made a serious mistake not including a shute and Cessna has not corrected this so far. I think with the shute, the Columbia would have done a lot better as then it would have been a real competition between Cirrus and them. The other issue in Europe at least may well be that the FIKI system seems not available for EASA registered planes.
I do remember when the flying group here at ZRH had to shop for a new airplane after their Mooney was lost in a crash. They tested all three: Ovation 3 GX, Columbia 400 and SR22. They went for the Columbia 400, as they found it was the best airplane at the time. However, they struggle with it, as they can not get it registered in Switzerland without removing the FIKI system! That is outright stupid, but apparently the FIKI TKS system of the Columbias never got certified in EASA. I hope that this will change, otherwise it would be another explanation why the Columbias do not sell in Europe.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
they found it was the best airplane at the time
It depends on what metric you use for best, commercially that airplane is a huge disaster, it’s a massive lossmaker for the aeroclub. Their current party line is that this is due to it being N-reg and therefore not attractive for renters, that’s why they go through the hassle to put it on easa reg (it’s not just FIKI, but DME as well). But I’m not holding my breath.
Exactly. When buying a plane, particularly as a flying club, the “commonness” factor simply has to be considered. A club simply can’t buy on the basis of “which is technically the best aircraft”. Everybody knows that.
Now given that the aircraft doesn’t fly, one can say it was a disaster for the club. Had they bought an SR22, they would probably have sold 4x as many flight hours up till today.
I agree, possibly the focus might have been misplaced during the buying process.
Both Columbia and SR22 are wonderful aircraft.
A friend of mine also bought a Columbia 400 at a very low price, the price was the reason to purchase.
I have flown it myself and it’s very very powerful. Hugely impressive aircraft.
Sorry about the thread drift.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
That surprises me (particularly the range). But it shows that it really is a very good idea to thoroughly read through all the POH’s e.t.c. in order to make an educated buy. But a quick look up sais you are absolutely right. Both planes are almost identical in performance (I suppose I must have had the Monroy LR tanks in mind with the Ovation) and speed, as well as consumption.
The Columbia holds a total of 106 gallons, standard, 98 usable. The Ovations 1 & 2, sans STC, are 85 usable, advantage Columbia . It’s not much but if you were doing an all out range exercise, cruising LOP @ FL120, that extra 13 gallons will buy you an additional 170NM and another hour aloft.
Talking about fuel: That is probably the WORST part about the Mooney : Leaky fuel bays ! It’s stinky, messy and expensive to fix properly and one can PLAN on having leaks after less than 10 years since new. All 3 of the Ovations I wrench on suffer from fuel leaks.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
However, I think Columbia made a serious mistake not including a shute and Cessna has not corrected this so far. I think with the shute, the Columbia would have done a lot better as then it would have been a real competition between Cirrus and them.
Maybe, but one thing is sure: Lancair did a piss-poor job of marketing the Columbia. Hard to say if the chute would have closed the gap with Cirrus.
complex-pilot wrote:
Sorry about the thread drift.
No thread drift whatsoever since the OP was retract Vs fixed – strength Vs aerodynamic efficiency.
The fact that the fixed gear Columbia / Ttx out-perform the fastest competing retract, despite having a roomier cabin, 2 doors and leaving the gear down, sums it up to a “T”.
BTW: Suggesting that retracts are “sturdier” than fixed gear is a joke: retracts have a miserable failure rate whilst the fixed gear failure rate is as close to nil as you can imagine.
Mooney has actually changed the tank sealing system. The sealant isn’t painted on the spar / skin angle like it used to be. It is painted on the skin before it is mated to the spar and then compressed between the skin and the spar as they are riveted together.
