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
The Turbo SR22 has internal O2. The Turbo is installed at the factory on the normal part of the production line, so the line between TCDS and STC is quite blurred.
Cabin Space: Cirrus wins hands down over the Columbia. The Columbia is only slightly more roomy than a Mooney, but not much. You really need to be good friends with your passenger in the Columbia.
Neither aircraft is good in ice. One doesn't take a clean wing into ice without certified equipment, and one thinks twice before taking a certified clean wing into ice even if it is certified. One especially avoids flying in the worst winter storm in [fill in the blank] years over the Sierras [or Rockies] with an aircraft. I've had friends in King Airs and Citations falling out of the sky with too much ice attempting to do that. Some have survived, some haven't.
G1000 versus Avidyne, both have their strengths and weaknesses. Both are based on the Garmin 430, so if you know that, you'll be able to figure out either of the glass cockpits. I have a bunch of avionics checklists published for whenever you forget something, it's on the checklist.
Both aircraft have been spin tested, the guys at Columbia just spent more money to get the FAA stamp in the 'spin' box versus Cirrus with the FAA stamp in the 'equivalent level of safety' box. Where do spins get ya? In the traffic pattern. The chute *might* help. In either aircraft a spin at pattern altitude is a bad idea.
Have there been some lives saved because of Cirrus' chute? Yes. The accident investigators have gone as far to state that had the people involved not had a chute, the accidents would have had no survivors.
Accident rates? Cirrus' overall rate is less than the GA average, Columbia slightly higher. The numbers are so small that a single accident of either can cause their positions to reverse. Cirrus, Columbia, Centurions, Bonanzas, and Malibus share roughly the same accident rates for the same reasons, except the Cirrus guys don't have too many gear up landings.
For the Cirrus, factory support at a service center is fair. I've had both immediate fixes and wait for days for tech support to give answers, the mechanics to try it, and then wait days for further answers when the first attempt didn't fix it.
At a non-service center or a newly designated one, support sucks bilge water. If you have a problem develop in-flight, you're better off landing at an airport either a service center, otherwise the tech support guys will do their best to force you to fly the aircraft to a service center. One example, my SR20 has been down for 2 weeks and it's expected to go through 3 weeks for a minor problem that has a 10 minute fix.
Part of the problem seems to be the owners that call up asking really stupid questions that could be answered with a short visit to their friendly flight instructor. I know one place that spent four hours trying to figure out which spark plug was firing on cylinder 2 when on the left mag - it's in the bleeping manual. Another problem is that the Cirrus fleet size has doubled, but the number of support techs and service centers has not. Cirrus should add an instructor to their hotline for the training questions and a mechanic instructor for the RTFM questions.
Columbia, with a greatly reduced support network, appears to be even worse, yet with a smaller fleet.
In contrast, only a few mechanics in the Cessna Service Centers could figure out Cessna's G1000 & other electrical glitches. With ten times the number of service centers, Cessna went through the growing pains in two years. Cirrus is on year three.
All 'C' factories are aware of their support problems, but progress is slow.
Now for a large ‘however’. The Cirrus delivered since early 2006 seem to have few to zero problems that would require use of a Service Center. The ones delivered from 2000 through 2006 have a couple to a few problems, most having already been worked out.
Overall, I really enjoy flying and instructing in the Cirrus (500+ hours now). Flying hard IFR with a glass cockpit and working autopilot does reduce my workload and tends to make the long cross countries boring, which is where they should be. I really enjoy the air conditioning, something not always available on the older aircraft, or still in working condition.
I have not flown the Columbia as my clients tend to sit in one for a little while then go out and buy the Cirrus instead.
Cabin Space: Cirrus wins hands down over the Columbia. The Columbia is only slightly more roomy than a Mooney, but not much. You really need to be good friends with your passenger in the Columbia.
Neither aircraft is good in ice. One doesn't take a clean wing into ice without certified equipment, and one thinks twice before taking a certified clean wing into ice even if it is certified. One especially avoids flying in the worst winter storm in [fill in the blank] years over the Sierras [or Rockies] with an aircraft. I've had friends in King Airs and Citations falling out of the sky with too much ice attempting to do that. Some have survived, some haven't.
G1000 versus Avidyne, both have their strengths and weaknesses. Both are based on the Garmin 430, so if you know that, you'll be able to figure out either of the glass cockpits. I have a bunch of avionics checklists published for whenever you forget something, it's on the checklist.
Both aircraft have been spin tested, the guys at Columbia just spent more money to get the FAA stamp in the 'spin' box versus Cirrus with the FAA stamp in the 'equivalent level of safety' box. Where do spins get ya? In the traffic pattern. The chute *might* help. In either aircraft a spin at pattern altitude is a bad idea.
Have there been some lives saved because of Cirrus' chute? Yes. The accident investigators have gone as far to state that had the people involved not had a chute, the accidents would have had no survivors.
Accident rates? Cirrus' overall rate is less than the GA average, Columbia slightly higher. The numbers are so small that a single accident of either can cause their positions to reverse. Cirrus, Columbia, Centurions, Bonanzas, and Malibus share roughly the same accident rates for the same reasons, except the Cirrus guys don't have too many gear up landings.
For the Cirrus, factory support at a service center is fair. I've had both immediate fixes and wait for days for tech support to give answers, the mechanics to try it, and then wait days for further answers when the first attempt didn't fix it.
At a non-service center or a newly designated one, support sucks bilge water. If you have a problem develop in-flight, you're better off landing at an airport either a service center, otherwise the tech support guys will do their best to force you to fly the aircraft to a service center. One example, my SR20 has been down for 2 weeks and it's expected to go through 3 weeks for a minor problem that has a 10 minute fix.
Part of the problem seems to be the owners that call up asking really stupid questions that could be answered with a short visit to their friendly flight instructor. I know one place that spent four hours trying to figure out which spark plug was firing on cylinder 2 when on the left mag - it's in the bleeping manual. Another problem is that the Cirrus fleet size has doubled, but the number of support techs and service centers has not. Cirrus should add an instructor to their hotline for the training questions and a mechanic instructor for the RTFM questions.
Columbia, with a greatly reduced support network, appears to be even worse, yet with a smaller fleet.
In contrast, only a few mechanics in the Cessna Service Centers could figure out Cessna's G1000 & other electrical glitches. With ten times the number of service centers, Cessna went through the growing pains in two years. Cirrus is on year three.
All 'C' factories are aware of their support problems, but progress is slow.
Now for a large ‘however’. The Cirrus delivered since early 2006 seem to have few to zero problems that would require use of a Service Center. The ones delivered from 2000 through 2006 have a couple to a few problems, most having already been worked out.
Overall, I really enjoy flying and instructing in the Cirrus (500+ hours now). Flying hard IFR with a glass cockpit and working autopilot does reduce my workload and tends to make the long cross countries boring, which is where they should be. I really enjoy the air conditioning, something not always available on the older aircraft, or still in working condition.
I have not flown the Columbia as my clients tend to sit in one for a little while then go out and buy the Cirrus instead.
Last edited:
mzaharis
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2004
- Posts
- 541
Another applicable discussion on another forum - columbia or bonanza.
Just coincidentally saw it a couple of days ago, reading about the Garmin G600.
http://www.aero-farm.com/ubbthreads...07&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1&vc=1
deadstick
Pucker Factor: HIGH
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2002
- Posts
- 706
MrBojangle
Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2005
- Posts
- 8
I work in Duluth as a factory training instructor for Cirrus and I can add a few pieces of insight.
For one, the 22 Turbo is a two person machine. You might need ballast in the back depending on your weights.
As far as customer support, you're obviously going to hear both sides of the coin. However I have seen Cirrus absolutely bend over backward to accomodate. They do a great job.
Aircraft quality fit and finish could use a little work with the 22. It's like comparing a Honda to a Lexus. Both look great, but the "hypothetical" finish differences may differ.
I have not flown the Colombia, but the 22T is hands down the easiest aircraft I have ever flown. Once you overcome the avionics hurdles (all the kinks will be worked out once you take the transition training) the plane is a joy to fly.
Hope this helps
For one, the 22 Turbo is a two person machine. You might need ballast in the back depending on your weights.
As far as customer support, you're obviously going to hear both sides of the coin. However I have seen Cirrus absolutely bend over backward to accomodate. They do a great job.
Aircraft quality fit and finish could use a little work with the 22. It's like comparing a Honda to a Lexus. Both look great, but the "hypothetical" finish differences may differ.
I have not flown the Colombia, but the 22T is hands down the easiest aircraft I have ever flown. Once you overcome the avionics hurdles (all the kinks will be worked out once you take the transition training) the plane is a joy to fly.
Hope this helps
Actually, you need to already have the avionics KNOWN before heading the DLH for the transition training. By flight #4-5 you are expected to have 'automation proficiency'. This means you are not still struggling with big knob and little knob.
It's a rare pilot that can conquer the 430 while trying to figure out the airplane.
G2T
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2005
- Posts
- 447
Direct to and enter baby!! If you're going IFR you should have the flight plan loaded before you take off. It's not rocket science, its just a cirrus (and yes, I've flown it).
Publishers
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2002
- Posts
- 1,736
I have flown them both. Being a bigger person, the Cirrus is for me. The Columbia was one of the most uncomfortable aircraft I have had to sit in. The Cirrus seemed much more repsonsive at all speeds and had better all around visability. The Columbia went a bit faster but felt heavier and needed the trim to keep my arm from falling off. Cirrus did not land quite like the Columbia which again felt more like landing a Hawker - Not much flare.
One thing that came up in the Columbia was that we needed special jacks to change the tires.
I like the Avidyne over the 1000 and from the conversations around here that seems to be a concensus. It is more intuitive than the Garmin. I flew the Garmin in a 172 and at that speed, I had plenty of time to figure it out.
Our airport had about 10 Cirrus and one Columbia. That is the vote.
One thing that came up in the Columbia was that we needed special jacks to change the tires.
I like the Avidyne over the 1000 and from the conversations around here that seems to be a concensus. It is more intuitive than the Garmin. I flew the Garmin in a 172 and at that speed, I had plenty of time to figure it out.
Our airport had about 10 Cirrus and one Columbia. That is the vote.
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:
