I got to fly a Cessna 400. I met another gentleman there that will be flying it this coming week. I emailed him the BeechTalk website and told him about the good information here. He is in the same position I am. We both are leaning towards Bo's, but trying to complete a little due diligence also.

He asked my opinion on the Bo, (there was an older one sitting right next to the 400 in the hanger).

I told him I believe that performance is close, with the 400 a little faster, but the Bo had a better "known" factor 5 years from now, both in durability and resale. New, you can buy a Bo for less with the huge discounts we are hearing about, but you would quickly eat that up in AC option, oxygen and TN. The 400 carries 102 gal, and has a full fuel PAYLOAD of around 520 lbs, but AC and Oxygen are standard. I said with the tip tanks and TN gross increase, you will have a better payload with the Bo.

Here is my pi-rep on the 400. If anyone has any analogous information between the two, I would appreciate it.

http://www.purpleboard.net/~purplebo/fo ... php?t=3940

It's very similar to my feel on the G3 Turbo Cirrus I recently flew.

I loved the G3. It was new, fast, clean and very nice. It's a lot of bang for the buck.

However, I am in a lease program with a company that supplies G2 Cirrus's. They shake and vibrate and feel like an old speedboat. These planes are 2005 and newer. They're all fiberglass. You'll never see a 10 year old Cirrus.

The Cirrus Turbo and Cessna 400 have made a severe impact on Bonanza sales. Bonanza's are selling less because of it. Take advantage.

I'm still gonna buy a TN Bonanza or Baron. I just like for things to be made of metal.

It's interesting to hear you say that. I agree, for a number of reasons, but I have a friend who's deathly afraid of metal fatigue in those "old airplanes". I've tried pointing out the stats to him, but it's no use

I'd be leery of "metal fatigue" in older planes also.

Those Cirrus's I fly with 500 to 1000 hours sure do show a lot of wear.