My wife wants a Corvalis

J

JOhnH

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
14,506
Location
Florida
Display Name
Display name:
Right Seater
I would love to have one too, but it is out of our budget.

We already have an absolutely beautiful Cessna 172 with new paint, new leather, new plastic and new plexiglass that we have too much invested in. It has a brand new 180hp engine and a very nice panel (GNS 530W, Garmin 496, Garmin 340 audio panel, Garmin Transponder, JPI EDI 700 engine monitor, JPI FS450 fuel flow gauge, Digital Tach and a few other things).

She wants something faster and instead of compromising on something else and wanting to upgrade again later she thinks we should take the plunge now. She has a point, but I have a problem buying a plane that will cost more than my house.

What are some of the pros and cons of a Corvalis? We like to take weekend or 3 day trips and go as far as possible without spending the whole time in the air. We eventually want to fly from our home base in Florida to Catalina Island. We take a couple of 10 day vacations a year and we want to see as much of the Country as possible. We will be retiring in about 4 or 5 years (hard to believe) and we plan to do even more cross country, as long as we are healthy enough. (I expect to live forever, so far so good).

By the way, she is the pilot in the Family and she is working on her instrument rating. I gave up my ticket years ago because of my eyes and my hearing, but I make a pretty good right seat co pilot and navigator.
 
I flew in one when it was called a Lanceair, and I was sold. I don't see the down side, other than the rather hefty price tag.
 
Yeah, my girlfriend wants a 185 on amphibs and an engagement ring, not in that order. We all have problems!
Have you guys considered something similarly fast but not as expensive, like an early 2000s Mooney?
 
As I recall, the Corvallis is just a certified and highly-priced Lancair ES. If you want the same airplane for less money, you can buy a Lancair ES. Or, get the ES-P and have the added benefit of pressurization. The Lancair IV-P is the ultimate in speed and performance, but has killed many a complacent pilot.

To get similar performance for a lot less money, you can go out and buy a Bonanza. An A33 with a 550 has nice performance for less money, and can even be had with a turbo-normalizing kit. This seems like a really good option to me, and one to look into.

Keep in mind that for either plane (although especially for the Corvallis/Lancair), you are talking about a significant jump from a 172. A Bonanza doesn't require a lot of trainsition training to get comfortable in. A Lancair will require more.
 
IMG_5712.jpg


We had one of those on the trip that Christopher and I took to the Bahamas last month. It was an attention getter on the ramp... here it is on the ramp at Stella Maris (MYLS). The routine was that faster airplanes always launched first when we went anywhere together to prevent congestion getting into the arrival airport(s)... let's just say that I never got to find out what it was like landing first at places. You'd have to ask THEM! B)
 
Tell her she's lucky if she even gets this!

:D
 

Attachments

  • 1966-chevrolet-corvair-monza-2.jpg
    1966-chevrolet-corvair-monza-2.jpg
    41.6 KB · Views: 14
JOhnH said:
I would love to have one too, but it is out of our budget.
Click to expand...

http://www.velocityaircraft.com/airplane-models-turbo.html

$150k-$200k will get you pre-built, factory inspected and approved, all glass panel, won't ever stall/spin (see Lancair IV-P), docile handling, load it up and go 200kts airplane. Only thing you give up is 2000 ft runways, grass / gravel runways and certified airplane part costs.

For $200k you can easily get one of these birds loaded with a Garmin G3X two screen system and fully integrated / coupled TruTrak autopilot. Take it once a year down to Florida for the experts to look her over and just about any A&P can handle the remainder of the systems throughout the year.

Two notes:
(1) I wouldn't do it without a factory pre-buy and sign-off on the plane.
(2) I personally wouldn't go for the turbo model - too new and too few flying, though 235kts sure has an appeal.

Have your wife take one for a spin, they are absolutely lovely. You've not lived until you've watched the sun set over your very own swept wing.
 
From Florida to Catalina Island is a pretty long trip no matter how spiffy a single you have.

I think Wayne's advice about doing a demo trip in anything you're thinking about buying would be very valuable.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Keep in mind that for either plane (although especially for the Corvallis/Lancair), you are talking about a significant jump from a 172. A Bonanza doesn't require a lot of trainsition training to get comfortable in. A Lancair will require more.
Click to expand...

The buddy in who's Lanceair I flew upgraded from a 182 with few issues. I don't think he spent more than a day or two in training before he took off from Oregon. Corvalis will be easier in some ways than a Bo, since the gear is welded down and and fuel system far simpler. I imagine the flight controller would take some transition training, though.
 
JOhnH said:
I would love to have one too, but it is out of our budget.

We already have an absolutely beautiful Cessna 172 with new paint, new leather, new plastic and new plexiglass that we have too much invested in. It has a brand new 180hp engine and a very nice panel (GNS 530W, Garmin 496, Garmin 340 audio panel, Garmin Transponder, JPI EDI 700 engine monitor, JPI FS450 fuel flow gauge, Digital Tach and a few other things).

She wants something faster and instead of compromising on something else and wanting to upgrade again later she thinks we should take the plunge now. She has a point, but I have a problem buying a plane that will cost more than my house.

What are some of the pros and cons of a Corvalis? We like to take weekend or 3 day trips and go as far as possible without spending the whole time in the air. We eventually want to fly from our home base in Florida to Catalina Island. We take a couple of 10 day vacations a year and we want to see as much of the Country as possible. We will be retiring in about 4 or 5 years (hard to believe) and we plan to do even more cross country, as long as we are healthy enough. (I expect to live forever, so far so good).

By the way, she is the pilot in the Family and she is working on her instrument rating. I gave up my ticket years ago because of my eyes and my hearing, but I make a pretty good right seat co pilot and navigator.
Click to expand...

Pros: Your wife wants one.
 
A wife that wants the airplane, the money to do it, that is one hell of a problem to have...

Personally I'd go for the Lancair and save a few bucks as Ted suggests - but most likely I'd just buy a Bonanza.
 
I have flown the 400 Corvallis and I don't think there is a better piston single for two people to travel long distances made. If we're talking used the Cirrus with similar equipment/performance can be had much cheaper and with even more equipment although it isn't as fun to hand fly. I would be very careful buying a Corvallis now because everyone is waiting to see/fly the TTx (although its just an avionics upgrade). Also, if you have any thoughts of taking more people or stuff consider the G36 with TN.

BTW I don't think you can compare any of the suggested experimentals to certified aircraft on price/performance alone.
 
Alexb2000 said:
Also, if you have any thoughts of taking more people or stuff consider the G36 with TN.
Click to expand...
A guy at Beechtalk just found out that he can't install a FIKI system on a Bo with TN, because TN is considered an "external modification" (huh?).
 
JOhnH said:
She wants something faster and instead of compromising on something else and wanting to upgrade again later she thinks we should take the plunge now.
Click to expand...

So, what exactly are you waiting for ? :incazzato:

Are you committed to buying new for some reason ? If not, a 4 year old 400 will be about 1/2 the list price for a new one. Also, if you are not obsessed about an integrated glass cockpit, you may want to look at the 2001-2003 model 300s. They don't go 'turbo high' and 'turbo fast' but you are looking at 1/4 the price of a new Corvallis with not that much loss in speed and capability. It would still be quite a step up in annual expenses from a 172, but you may actually be able to retire if you go that route.
 
We have a Corvalis for rent up here. It's an amazing machine. I strongly suggest you take a demo flight in one and experience it for yourself.
 
Wife wants airplane that costs more than the house. I do not see the problem here. ;)
 
Trapper John said:
Looks like there's a louver installed for the airbox. That would be an external modification.

http://www.taturbo.com/installs.html
Click to expand...

I have heard "some" people get the FIKI TKS first, then add TN, and Tips. This comes down to common sense vs. bureaucracy, since TN would help you more than hurt you in an icing situation (even with a louver).
 
steingar said:
Corvalis will be easier in some ways than a Bo, since the gear is welded down and and fuel system far simpler.
Click to expand...

RG, I acknowledge. But fuel? Left, Right, Off - this is tough?
 
SCCutler said:
RG, I acknowledge. But fuel? Left, Right, Off - this is tough?
Click to expand...

I had a Bo fuel exhaustion accident described to me where the complex fuel system was a factor. Perhaps it was because of tip tanks, but the system was described as sufficiently complex to require some currency. The Lanceair/Columbia/corvalis is left/right/off, just like my Cherokee.
 
steingar said:
I had a Bo fuel exhaustion accident described to me where the complex fuel system was a factor. Perhaps it was because of tip tanks, but the system was described as sufficiently complex to require some currency. The Lanceair/Columbia/corvalis is left/right/off, just like my Cherokee.
Click to expand...

Left/Right/Off on the Debonair I fly.

They're a piece of cake to fly. Would be much better on grass as well.
 
Alexb2000 said:
I have heard "some" people get the FIKI TKS first, then add TN, and Tips. This comes down to common sense vs. bureaucracy, since TN would help you more than hurt you in an icing situation (even with a louver).
Click to expand...

As the gentleman from CAV explained it conforming to the limitations and equipment lists of the STC is what makes it FIKI, not the extra sheets of paper in the AFM or the placard (adding tips and TAT will have the same effect in FIKI certification as removing the backup alternator for overhaul).

Nobody will care until you roll it into a ball after an icing encounter but our estate may run into insurance issues if you do.
 
Depends what you like.

Bonanzas have by far the best control harmonics of any single I've ever flown. Others I can't stand. For example, I hate the sloppy control feel of Cesdna pistons. The SR22 wasn't fun either. Piper archers were surprisingly nice.

I dont know how the Corvalis fits in - so I'd definitely try it first and see if you like it.
 
JOhnH said:
I would love to have one too, but it is out of our budget.
Click to expand...

The most important question, which nobody has asked yet: What is your budget?

She wants something faster and instead of compromising on something else and wanting to upgrade again later she thinks we should take the plunge now. She has a point, but I have a problem buying a plane that will cost more than my house.
Click to expand...

I would suggest that a good compromise might be a DA40. They can be had with glass panels and the KAP 140 autopilot for $160K pretty easily right now, or with the Garmin autopilot for more like $220K. It won't cost you any more to operate than the C172, but it'll give you MUCH better view, handling characteristics, and ramp appeal. If 140-145 KTAS isn't fast enough, there is a supercharger STC that should be coming out this year that should allow higher flying and faster airspeeds. Bonus: The safety record is excellent and insurance rates are low.

But, I make this recommendation without knowing where your budget is - If you can afford more airplane, a used Corvalis/Columbia 400 might be in the cards. Were I in the market, I'd be looking at one with the G1000 and the Garmin "ReadyPad" - Something like this http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/detail.aspx?OHID=1194171 or this http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/detail.aspx?OHID=1195083

One more thing to consider: DA40 now to build up some time and an instrument rating, and get in line for a Diamond DA50 SuperStar. Like a Corvalis only pressurized, so no need to wear nose straws or a mask to go fast. :goofy:
 
sba55 said:
Bonanzas have by far the best control harmonics of any single I've ever flown. Others I can't stand. For example, I hate the sloppy control feel of Cesdna pistons. The SR22 wasn't fun either. Piper archers were surprisingly nice.
Click to expand...
Just out of curiousity, have you flown a Cardinal?

I too agree on the overall control feel of most Cessnas, excpet the 177RG - it had very precise controls - in the air it handled alot like a Bo.
 
jesse said:
Left/Right/Off on the Debonair I fly.

They're a piece of cake to fly. Would be much better on grass as well.
Click to expand...

The only Bo I've every flown is the Debonair. Feels real sweet, and very solid in turbulence. Just an overall good and reliable feeling. And not too slow, either--she easily does 160 - 170 knots true.
 
The tip tanks he mentioned are the source of the complexity.

jesse said:
Left/Right/Off on the Debonair I fly.

They're a piece of cake to fly. Would be much better on grass as well.
Click to expand...
 
How big a deal can handling qualities be for the 10 minutes you hand-fly on each trip?

sba55 said:
Depends what you like.

Bonanzas have by far the best control harmonics of any single I've ever flown. Others I can't stand. For example, I hate the sloppy control feel of Cesdna pistons. The SR22 wasn't fun either. Piper archers were surprisingly nice.

I dont know how the Corvalis fits in - so I'd definitely try it first and see if you like it.
Click to expand...
 
I owned a Columbia 400 for 3 years. Mine had the Avidyne panel and the Platinum engine. I've owned several other retract HP singles and this plane is far and away the most capable amazing aircraft I've flown for a SE piston. Tanks at the tabs, two adults on board and baggage climbing out on a warm day we'd set the vertical on the autopilot to 1300 fpm and still see 170 kts true in the climb. 190 kts 100 LOP @ 18 g/h below 12,000; 100 ROP would yield 200+ kts on 23 g/h down low and in the teens I'd get 215 true. It's the strongest airframe made with two composite spars. And it was remarkably easy to fly for such a HP aircraft.

Downsides - headroom. Er, yeah, headroom. That's about it. I'd just recline the seat a bit and I was fine at 5'10".
 
PittsDriver said:
I owned a Columbia 400 for 3 years. Mine had the Avidyne panel and the Platinum engine. I've owned several other retract HP singles and this plane is far and away the most capable amazing aircraft I've flown for a SE piston. Tanks at the tabs, two adults on board and baggage climbing out on a warm day we'd set the vertical on the autopilot to 1300 fpm and still see 170 kts true in the climb. 190 kts 100 LOP @ 18 g/h below 12,000; 100 ROP would yield 200+ kts on 23 g/h down low and in the teens I'd get 215 true. It's the strongest airframe made with two composite spars. And it was remarkably easy to fly for such a HP aircraft.

Downsides - headroom. Er, yeah, headroom. That's about it. I'd just recline the seat a bit and I was fine at 5'10".
Click to expand...

On the 2008 I flew the seat bottom could be changed out to increase headroom. I am 6'1 and had no problem. Sounds like they heard the complaints in the earlier models.
 
Trapper John said:
Geez, it only went 340 hours before they had to top it?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I saw that. A sign of abuse, most likely. I'd probably go for the other one I linked to.

PittsDriver said:
Downsides - headroom. Er, yeah, headroom. That's about it. I'd just recline the seat a bit and I was fine at 5'10".
Click to expand...

Er... Yeah. I sat in a 300 once, and I was looking at the upper door frame. Not gonna happen (I'm 6'4").

Sitting in a 400 was better, but unfortunately still pretty bad. :(

The DA50 was extremely roomy, though. :ihih:
 
My wife wants a Pilatus PC-12

Of course, desire and ability to purchase are two totally different things! :)OTOH, it would do everything you want the Corvalis to do, plus land in small spaces!

Oops, actually, that was my initial supposition. The numbers, however, are Corvalis TTx: 1600' landing, 2600 takeoff. PC-12NG: 1830' landing and 2650' takeoff. Of course, those are at gross, and 2 people in a PC-12 don't even approach gross!
 
The TN-A36 guys report good reliability using those power settings. But you know how they lie.
Trapper John said:
I dunno. Running at 85% power at high altitude doesn't seem like much of a recipe for long engine life.
Click to expand...
 
Trapper John said:
I dunno. Running at 85% power at high altitude doesn't seem like much of a recipe for long engine life.
Click to expand...
It is. Many people run at 85-90% LOP and are way past TBO. The latter is key. You don't get good engine life ROP at those settings.

This isn't being questioned by knowledgeable folks anymore and it hasn't been for quite a while. I highly recommend both Advanced Pilots Seminars and Mike Bush's online and free webinars if you are interested in learning more.
 
Last edited:
sba55 said:
It is. Many people run at 85-90% LOP and are way past TBO.
Click to expand...

From the Columbia 400 POH:

The TSIO-550C engine can be operated lean of peak at lower power settings. At higher power settings the TIT limit could be exceeded during the leaning process, in general leaning past peak TIT is only possible below about 65% power (varies with ambient conditions).
 
sba55 said:
It is. Many people run at 85-90% LOP and are way past TBO. The latter is key. You don't get good engine life ROP at those settings.

This isn't being questioned by knowledgeable folks anymore and it hasn't been for quite a while. I highly recommend both Advanced Pilots Seminars and Mike Bush's online and free webinars if you are interested in learning more.
Click to expand...

You are referring to very specific engines in specific installations with that statement. Sure, it'll work on some planes. Good luck doing that with a 421 or a Navajo.

When you get a bit more knowledgeable, write back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top