Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
Columbia 400 vs Cirrus SR22 Turbo
- Thread starter Swass
- Start date
- Watchers 8
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
ultrarunner
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 4,322
Swass, I have not flown either of them, but I frequent a small airport where there is a Cirrus service center, and as a result, I have poked around that airframe quite a bit. IMO, it appears to be a first-class built airplane.
The performance of the turbo models looks impressive. While I never favored turbo's for a number of reasons, they do deliver speeds if you're willing to fly those small planes high.
A call to AOPA can tell you what you're facing as far as the underwriter goes. And that will be based on how much liability you carry, hull value and your flight experience.
I'd get a demo on each if you haven't already.
The performance of the turbo models looks impressive. While I never favored turbo's for a number of reasons, they do deliver speeds if you're willing to fly those small planes high.
A call to AOPA can tell you what you're facing as far as the underwriter goes. And that will be based on how much liability you carry, hull value and your flight experience.
I'd get a demo on each if you haven't already.
Swass
So long, America.....
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2003
- Posts
- 2,015
I'll be on the demo trail soon, I'm just brainstorming right now. As far as experience goes I've owned aircraft big and small so with over 3k pic so insurance shouldn't be too big an issue. This is for a startup I'm working on and need a plane with a little speed but no real cabin necessities since it will be mostly me and another individual.
ultrarunner
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 4,322
How does the service network compare between the two manufactures? I know Cirrus has quite an extensive network. How does Columbia shape up? Is there a service center near where you will be based?
If not, since you're considering "new", I would inquire as to their 'warranty reimbursement' policy, if any.
As you may be aware, most manufactures want the planes in the service center for warranty work. Although in the case of Cirrus, I believe they use quite an extensive approved FBO network for warranty work, etc. I'd find out how Columbia works it.
Are both approved for known-ice if you spring for their respective anti-ice options?
I seem to remember some Flying articles that indicate both these airplanes have fairly high wing loading. That could be a factor in runway lengths as high wing loading usually results in higher ref speeds. Likely not an issue unless you're wanting to use really short runways, but something to consider.
Have you looked at the Mooney's? They are essentially in the same price and performance class.
If not, since you're considering "new", I would inquire as to their 'warranty reimbursement' policy, if any.
As you may be aware, most manufactures want the planes in the service center for warranty work. Although in the case of Cirrus, I believe they use quite an extensive approved FBO network for warranty work, etc. I'd find out how Columbia works it.
Are both approved for known-ice if you spring for their respective anti-ice options?
I seem to remember some Flying articles that indicate both these airplanes have fairly high wing loading. That could be a factor in runway lengths as high wing loading usually results in higher ref speeds. Likely not an issue unless you're wanting to use really short runways, but something to consider.
Have you looked at the Mooney's? They are essentially in the same price and performance class.
deadstick
Pucker Factor: HIGH
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2002
- Posts
- 706
Check out the new White Papers on the Columbia web. The Tornado Alley Turbo for the SR22 is an STC.
Both have sub-par service. Warranty claims a painful for shops. There are more Cirrus centers, but they stay very busy
. It seems the Duluth Dart ends up in the shop quite a bit. I'd go ahead and stock a few alternators. I think the SR22 Turbo numbers are BS. They are based on LOP ops and, apparently, uses 17.5 gph at most altitudes. No internal O2 on the turbo.
The Columbia is spin certified. Not chute required. G1000/GFC700 is so much better than the Atari/Avidyne/STec system.
Remember, neither are aircraft to launch into KI. Those systems are to get you tooshie out of a bind.
Keep in mind that, depending on where you are flying, ATC might not let you go high to get the good speeds.
Both have sub-par service. Warranty claims a painful for shops. There are more Cirrus centers, but they stay very busy
. It seems the Duluth Dart ends up in the shop quite a bit. I'd go ahead and stock a few alternators. I think the SR22 Turbo numbers are BS. They are based on LOP ops and, apparently, uses 17.5 gph at most altitudes. No internal O2 on the turbo.The Columbia is spin certified. Not chute required. G1000/GFC700 is so much better than the Atari/Avidyne/STec system.
Remember, neither are aircraft to launch into KI. Those systems are to get you tooshie out of a bind.
Keep in mind that, depending on where you are flying, ATC might not let you go high to get the good speeds.
woutlaw
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2006
- Posts
- 85
I've flown the Cirrus some (~25 hours) and it's a heck of a nice airplane. (Non-turbo. Haven't had the chance to fly the turbo yet.)
The handling is simple enough with a distinct pre-stall buffet. The aileron/rudder interconnect makes it so you can pretty much fly it with your feet on the floor.
I've found the Cirrus to be really easy to fly.
The control loading doesn't have particularly distinctive aerodynamic feedback, it sort of feels about the same regardless of speed.
You can hold it deep into the stall and do the "falling leaf" thing without anything weird happening, provided you keep the ailerons neutral and are deft on the rudders. (Do this with an instructor on board, please. )
Steep turns, stalls, maneuvering are all a piece of cake and it's nice and crisp in roll. It just powers out of stalls, just like I assume the Columbia would.
Landing is a piece of cake: 80 knots, full flaps and just eek the nose up a hair when you think you're about to bury the nosewheel into the pavement. They land a bit flat when compared to a Cessna 172/182.
The chute is a nice backup, not just for an inadvertant spin but for loss of engine power over hostile terrain, loss of control in IMC, loss of some airframe bits, mid-air collision, etc.... Just don't get into the "Well, I have a chute so I'll try something I otherwise might not" mindest.
The Avidyne/Garmin/Stec combo is pretty sweet and simple to use. I've not compared it back-to-back with the G1000 but would guess it just comes down to a matter of training and personal preference. There's going to be a learning curve with both systems.
Dunno about the Atari aspect. The old Arnav MFD was pretty 80s looking but those haven't been installed since 2000 or so.
Service support would be a key factor were I in a position to choose between the two.
As for published speeds, I dunno, I guess that's just a matter of what the typical mission is. For a bunch of reasons I'd rarely, if ever, fly a non-pressurized airplane to FL250 so the top-speed at max altitude doesn't matter much to me. Your mission might be different, of course.
If was going to be flying routinely above 12,000 I'd prefer pressurization. Once you've flown something pressurized it's hard to go back.
An early-model Mirage can be had for about the same money as a new SR-22/Columbia (albeit with higher maintenance costs) and a Malibu can be found for $100k-$200K less, which pays for a lot of maintenance.
I've not flown the Columbia but they look like a wonderful airplane as well.
I do like that the Columbia has speed brakes.
Getting an SR-22 to slow down and come down while keeping some heat in the engine can take some doing. It's not a big deal, but there's been a couple of times that I wished I could pop out some boards to make a crossing restriction without pulling out too much power too quickly.
Good luck and enjoy the demo flights. You could probably flip a coin and be perfectly satisfied. It's a good problem to have, eh?
The handling is simple enough with a distinct pre-stall buffet. The aileron/rudder interconnect makes it so you can pretty much fly it with your feet on the floor.
I've found the Cirrus to be really easy to fly.
The control loading doesn't have particularly distinctive aerodynamic feedback, it sort of feels about the same regardless of speed.
You can hold it deep into the stall and do the "falling leaf" thing without anything weird happening, provided you keep the ailerons neutral and are deft on the rudders. (Do this with an instructor on board, please.
) Steep turns, stalls, maneuvering are all a piece of cake and it's nice and crisp in roll. It just powers out of stalls, just like I assume the Columbia would.
Landing is a piece of cake: 80 knots, full flaps and just eek the nose up a hair when you think you're about to bury the nosewheel into the pavement. They land a bit flat when compared to a Cessna 172/182.
The chute is a nice backup, not just for an inadvertant spin but for loss of engine power over hostile terrain, loss of control in IMC, loss of some airframe bits, mid-air collision, etc.... Just don't get into the "Well, I have a chute so I'll try something I otherwise might not" mindest.
The Avidyne/Garmin/Stec combo is pretty sweet and simple to use. I've not compared it back-to-back with the G1000 but would guess it just comes down to a matter of training and personal preference. There's going to be a learning curve with both systems.
Dunno about the Atari aspect. The old Arnav MFD was pretty 80s looking but those haven't been installed since 2000 or so.
Service support would be a key factor were I in a position to choose between the two.
As for published speeds, I dunno, I guess that's just a matter of what the typical mission is. For a bunch of reasons I'd rarely, if ever, fly a non-pressurized airplane to FL250 so the top-speed at max altitude doesn't matter much to me. Your mission might be different, of course.
If was going to be flying routinely above 12,000 I'd prefer pressurization. Once you've flown something pressurized it's hard to go back.
An early-model Mirage can be had for about the same money as a new SR-22/Columbia (albeit with higher maintenance costs) and a Malibu can be found for $100k-$200K less, which pays for a lot of maintenance.
I've not flown the Columbia but they look like a wonderful airplane as well.
I do like that the Columbia has speed brakes.
Getting an SR-22 to slow down and come down while keeping some heat in the engine can take some doing. It's not a big deal, but there's been a couple of times that I wished I could pop out some boards to make a crossing restriction without pulling out too much power too quickly.
Good luck and enjoy the demo flights. You could probably flip a coin and be perfectly satisfied. It's a good problem to have, eh?
Last edited:
mzaharis
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2004
- Posts
- 541
Here are a couple of links from the Columbia owners forum . . .
http://www.lancairpilots.org/showthread.php?t=2306
http://www.lancairpilots.org/showthread.php?t=2283
http://www.lancairpilots.org/showthread.php?t=2306
http://www.lancairpilots.org/showthread.php?t=2283
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
