So if Columbia had found a way to leverage the power of porn to sell aircraft, they could have gotten a leg up on Cirrus ?

I was trying to come up with a way to turn it into something involving 'legs up', but somehow my skills in the english language failed me.



Luckily, if you own the thing, you don't have to look at the nosegear very often.

Those planes are faster than other 4-place singles because they lug around engines made to pull 6-seaters like the 210 through the air. I know why they decided to go with the fixed gear, but sometimes I wonder what performance you could get out of either if they tucked away their wheels like any other self-respecting HP aircraft.

Probably 190+ knots like the Ovation, if I had to guess.

Damn straight!

John, aren't the NA SR22s several knots faster than an IO-550 powered A36? Seems it would stand to reason the TN versions would carry over that same speed advantage, no?

my buddy has 2006 SR22, we went to oshkosh a few wks ago. im NA A36.
we left 15 min apart, flew the same route. he beat me by 24 minutes.

on the way back, we were virtually identical.

The sr22 accelerates on the runway very fast, the rest of the flight characteristics are similar, except landing. he seems to need at least 2000 feet. I can land the A36 to complete stop over 50 feet in 1000 feet flat.

given, I wouldnt measure brake temp after that...

I figure he has about 4 kts on me WOT ROP, LOP he gets about 7-8kts faster.

If anyone is interested, look for the end of july flights on flight aware from 20n to SBY for N50WK and N233WZ. I forgot the date, but it should be obvious.

I own a 2005 Columbia 350 and I have about 80 hours in SR-22s and SR-20s. I can't speak for others, but the things that impressed me were fit/finish, handling (side stick is WAY better than that silly yoke thingy, trim is sensible and proportionate, and stalls in Columbias are completely benign -- not so in pre-G3 Cirruses). The interior of the older-style Columbias is roughly equal to Cirrus -- could go either way -- but the newer Columbia models with the G1000 are significantly better. It didn't have much to do with my decision, but the Columbia 350 is a little faster than an SR-22 (5-10 knots in my experience). I don't fly high very often so I don't need a turbo, but the Columbia 400 is a LOT faster than a TN-SR22 (again, in my experience -- I have about 40 hours in Columbia 400s and a couple of flights in turbo Cirruses). I haven't gotten into the science of fuel flows, but at least in the older-generation 350s and SR-22s, the fuel capacity and range are substantially greater in the Columbias.

So, why did the Cirrus outsell the Columbia? Lots of opinions out there, but my $0.02 is better marketing and fewer high-profile mistakes. Columbia is further proof that a superior product is only part of the equation. Cirrus had MUCH better management. (I don't buy the better financing argument -- Columbia burned through $600MM between 2003 and 2007 and still couldn't turn a profit.)

I agree with the posts regards timing of the market conditions for new planes and the excellent Cirrus marketing program.

I've not flown either of the planes (in the topic heading) but from the folks with whom I've talked the Columbia/Cessna 400 is a "better" plane. One of my friends has owned a SR22T and now flies the Cessna version of the Columbia. He particularly likes the true "stick" control of his present plane versus the in/out action required by Cirrus for pitch control.

For some reason the guys in Jason's age bracket who have been the ones driving the Cirrus/Columbia market don't buy used planes enough to keep the prices up on the plastic airplanes:

At the present time the approximate average used selling price vs. new selling price for an eight year old single engine plane:

Cirrus: 35% of new
Columbia: 35%
Piper: 55%
Beech: 65%

This is the other side of the "continuous innovation" coin. At least part of the reason the Bo retains its value is that the new models haven't changed that month (except for the G1000). An 8 year old Cirrus is pretty far behind their development curve.

anyone who gets a chance, go look at a cirrus with 2000 hours.
IT is a complete POS!!! just like an oldsmobile! it is beautiful day one, but after a few years, the gelcoat cracks, starts to peel, the metal fittings corrode/rust.

I saw one at duluth, on the doorjams, there were cracks all around, some 1/8" thick.
interior completely peeled, discolored, faded, and best of all, the shop said, "it had a hard life"

my reply " had ". the reply " about 2000 hrs, your best bet is to sell it and buy a new one"


not to mention depreciation!
My buddy just bought his 06 Sr22 GTS with TKS, and ALL the options with 500 hrs, certified for 285K

less than 1/2 price in 3 years?
its Definitely an OLDSMOBILE!!!

plus, its PLASTIC!!! It might be 6 kts slower, but it looks like a sperm with wings!

A bonanza with or without Tips is the sweetest single engine piston available.

Paul:

I agree with the curve having been fairly steep. However, the avionics being a pair of G430's/Avidyne/S-Tec 55, etc., is about the same for all brands for 2001 models.

So, my guess, the older folks who can be very happy with the above avionics prop up the prices for the aluminum planes and the younger ones, who grew up with a computer screen in their bedroom, insist on the computer screens in the airplane's panel.

Fractional ownership in a fleet of SR22's is what lead me to look at other options. One of the planes in the fleet had 700 hours. It was a 2005. It was beat %#$@. Vibrated, interior beat to hell, paint was dull and scratched. It was awful.

That's what made me start looking at Bonanzas.

That's what I love about your story, Jason, is that you fit exactly the market Cirrus is going after. And you flew one for a significant amount of time and later chose Beech. That's a pretty strong statement on the Cirrus quality and longevity in my book.

My personal experience is one flight in an SR22 turbo, and it was nice. I didn't like the side yoke though. I've sat in a Columbia 400 and based on that alone I probably would have chosen the Columbia... that said, I'm not one of the fanatical Cirrus haters, I think they're a great company.

Talking to guys that sell new Cessna there is one thing I find interesting but understandable. A guy who buys a Cirrrus usually never looks at a Cessna. They say they never meet up. Cirrus customers are attracted to Cirrus marketing, they like their design features, and shopping around rarely happens.

I really loved flying the Cessna 400 although it is a bit of a groundrunner. I'll bet Cessna is loosing market share with the 400 since most of their sales are dependant on "move-up" customers from their existing product line. It hard to sell plastic effectively when they've been selling against plastic for several years.

Now that Cessna has moved the Columbia operations to Wichita, they may start taking ownership of their new models. I think the different culture (good or bad) has been a problem.

The Cessna 400 (nosewheel) looks too much like a kitplane. I guess that 'cause it used to be!

I liked everything about the SR22 except it's ability to last a long time.