Bumpin' Along
By Richard L. Collins
September 2008
 The bases of the congested cumulus clouds were at 3,000 feet and the tops were somewhere around 15,000 feet. There was no thunder but some of the clouds were developing into rainshowers. I was flying the Columbia/Cessna 400 that resides at Rider Jet Center at Hagerstown, Maryland, where I was headed after departing from Asheville, North Carolina.
I didn't have any oxygen apparatus with me and was flying at 11,000 feet, higher than I like to fly but it had been on top of the cumulus for the first hour of the trip. Then it was in the clouds. They were so congested that there was no way to dodge them. So I sat back, relaxed, and let the GFC 700 flight control system wrestle the airplane through the clouds and the turbulence, which met the definition of moderate because things in the cabin were moving about.
And I thought about something. Not long before this someone had asked me if I missed my pressurized 210. I answered that I didn't really because I honestly did feel that I had worn the airplane out in 28 years and 9,000 hours and wasn't all that comfortable flying it any more because of maintenance issues. Lurching along in the 400, though, I thought maybe I did miss it a little.
In the P210 I would have flown atop the clouds, probably at 17,000 feet, with the cabin at about 8,000 feet. It would have probably been at a slightly slower true airspeed but a higher groundspeed because of stronger winds aloft. The fuel flow would have been three gallons per hour less.
Certainly the 400 is a higher tech ride but is it a great leap forward in airplane (as opposed to avionic) technology?
The 400 is a composite airplane, much like the Cirrus. When this was touted as the new wave of airplane technology, the claim was that it would be less expensive to build as well as lighter. Both were false promises.
Cessna has priced the 400 at $620,000, currently with no options. A new Bonanza G36 is roughly the same price with the same avionics. It also weighs about the same and is by far the oldest technology airframe being built today. And if there were to be a horse race with both airplanes limited to the same fuel flow and flying at or below 10,000 feet, I'd bet on the Bonanza even with its spacious club cabin. My old 210, pressurized as it was and with a large cabin, weighed little more empty than does the 400 that I fly.
Okay, so no magic there. The advantage that the composite airplanes have is in their beautiful curves and slick finishes. The fixed landing gear is also an advantage when it comes to insurance and maintenance, and it is pretty amazing that fixed-gear singles can perform as these airplanes do. Another advantage is that they fly like something new and different. They also give a good solid ride in turbulence. I think I could close my eyes and tell you whether I was in a composite or metal airframe when flying in turbulence.
As I was thinking about the advantages of the fixed landing gear, I looked at 10 days worth of reported accidents on the FAA website and found what I thought was a startling number. Of the reported accidents in retractables, over half were related to gear up landings or gear collapses. (Often gear collapses come when the pilot retracts the gear after landing. Squat switches don't always work.) So, the fixed gear does solve a major problem for both pilots and insurance companies.
Over the years the fleet of singles with retractable landing gear has had a history of airframe failures after losses of control. The V-tail Bonanzas, Cessna 210s and Piper 28 and 32 models were standouts in this area. None of the old-technology fixed-gear singles had a substantial involvement in this type mishap.
Discuss this article in our forums
| 
Copyright @ 2009 Bonnier Corp. All Rights Reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
