Anyone have any time in these planes? From what I have read 215 knots is cake at 18k and 230 at 25k is real also. I like the design of the cockpit and especially the heater/ac controls - just like a nice car. The built-in oxygen system also is very modern. Just seems like a lot of plane for the $ vs performance.

Anyone know how this plane runs LOP up at altitude? Also wondering just general thoughts about the plane such as payload, weight & balance, and how it handles in the ice with the TKS mod. Also wondering if the 350 has a TN mod available?

I have some time in one, but I have never owned one. Speeds you listed are about right, I recall seeing about 160 KIAS indicated in cruise at just about every altitude, it just keeps pulling as high as I wanted to go. The Lean Assist on the G1000 is setup for LOP and you fly LOP unless you want to go 235K. Climate controls are great, just like a car. Balance is very forgiving, useful is usually around a 1000. The 400 holds a lot of gas 102 Gal. if I recall correctly, so don't get hung up on full fuel payload. Handles like a dream. Built like a tank, very strong double spar, Utility category, rides like a business jet in turbulence. I've never had one in ice so I can't comment, although you will definitely have the climb performance to escape at almost any altitude(~1250 fpm). Common problems are the starter adapter, cylinders, rudder hinge AD. 2008 in my opinion was one of the best years. Bend, OR built with all of the updates including a yaw dampener. No TN option for the 350 that I've ever heard of.

Generally just an awesome aircraft in my opinion.

The 400POH includes charts for both LOP and ROP climbs and cruises

Fast, stable airplane. Wood and leather in the cockpit. The keypad input to the FMS for the G1000 is pretty cool as well.

Runway required is longer than most 4/6 place piston singles iirc.
Great 2 person travelling machine.

I can say many good things about the 400. I went back and forth several times when deciding on my G36.

I love flying the 400. It does many things quite well and really handles turbulence. It is one of my favorite airplanes to fly. Quick climbs and fast decents with the speed brakes. Visibility is quite good and it flys solid as a rock.

But....I bought a G36. The price of a new NA G36 and a TN C400 usually runs very close, with the G36 TAT mod w/ oxygen @ about $60,000. The day I flew a demo G36, it was sitting on the ramp directly next to the G36. That solved it. I just couldn't write a check for that much for the Cessna. It just didn't feel like good value. And now, a new Cessna TTX now lists for $737,000.00!

I wanted the best NA airplane made, I wanted more versitility, and knew I had the TN option if things changed with the G36. The LOP speeds of both with TN aren't much different. The fast numbers published for the 400 are ROP.

It sounds like you're asking about a Columbia, which is '07 and prior. I suppose they could be a decent value if they weren't run too hot (most were), but the Columbia's don't have WAAS ($$ for upgrade) and all Columbias and Cessna are limited to 1000#s useful.....and there's no mod to improve that number.

The choice everytime you lift off is fuel....or passengers in the backseat.

Todd,

Ditto everything Rick said. It is a wonderful airplane in all flying aspects, I love the side stick control above all others. I think the speeds you quote are too fast for actual real world experience by about 20 knots. (ie fuel & People in the plane slow it down)

Here is my pirep: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=614&hilit=cessna+400

BUT, with the twin turbo, you will find all the engines in them RARELY reach 800 hours without a top overhaul. Some jugs go in 400 hours. NONE reached 1000 hours.

If you had only flown cessnas before, you might not notice, but after flying Beech you will hate the lack of access to the engine.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Lycomings ie2 in that plane in the future. It would make it a better plane.

Also, resell is going to be harder. Long term longevity is a question. They have already had a recall on the rudder hinge area IIRC.

Cessna should take a play from the Beech playlist, and cut out dealers on the piston line, and knock $100k off the price of all their planes. New this plane should be a $550k plane. 182's should be $300k not $400. 172's should be $200k not $300.

Big downside:

Have you ever seen a mechanic remove the cowling on a 400? It is a two piece design with a piano hinge on the upper and lower cowling. It has a two (approx.) 30" X 1/8" rods to hold things together. It's a two man job. You put the rod in a drill and jam it thru the hinge while the other holds things steady. About 1 out of 10 times, the rod gets away from you and you head to the paint shop!

I insist on a preflight of my engine compartment. You'll never see the engine on your 400, except on oil changes. A lot of problems can develop between oil changes.

I have about 100 hours in the 400 and about 1,100 hours in my 350. They're great airplanes, and as somebody already said, they make outstanding 2-person traveling machines. We bought the Baron because my business trips often include 2-3 other folks, and we had kids fairly late in life so we needed more room. The airplanes are fast, comfortable and easy to maintain. The sidestick is outstanding -- it's the best flying airplane in GA, or at least, the best of the 45 or so I've flown. They are NOT good owner-maintained airplanes (a fact that also applies to other plastic airplanes IMHO). They also aren't great short-field airplanes, although they'll do it if you really need it. A few observations:

1. I bought the 350 over the 400 because the extra speed isn't that significant unless you get up really high or burn a lot of gas. I don't like O2 if it's not really necessary, and in the 400 it's always needed to get much in the way of speed. It burns a LOT of gas, but it carries the same amount as the 350. Ultimately the range was the deciding factor for me, as I do a lot of long trips (e.g., I've done Seattle to San Diego at least a dozen times in the Columbia). No way would the 400 do that in one leg, which means that door to door, the 350 is considerably faster even though the 400 will move faster over the ground. And you have to run the engine very hard to get book speeds out of them -- although they will do it if pressed.

2. I've heard a lot of stories about burnt cylinders and such on the TSIO-550, including a bunch at less than 500 hours, but I don't really know how significant those stories are. The Columbia isn't marketed to low-time pilots (one reason the accident rates are a lot lower than the SR-22) so the folks flying them are generally more experienced, and so you would think that people would be more careful with engine management. (I also should say that the electronic engine monitoring on the Avidyne and the G1000 is the one thing I miss the most when flying the Baron.) However, I think when you put that many moving parts into the hands of a non-professional pilot, especially one who doesn't have much turbine time, people forget or otherwise fail to manage the engine properly, so you're more likely to have bad results. I don't have a lot of 400 time, but I can say that when following -- or at least trying to follow -- the factory-taught engine management plan, I once accidentally ran the temps very near the 420 degree yellow line on climbout even on a temperate day in Seattle. I've never been over 405 in the 350, and that was very rare: unless it's really hot outside, it's really easy to keep them below 380 on climbout and they settle in around 320-340 in cruise if LOP. (There are guys in 350s who climb LOP, but I'm not one of them.)

3. There's no STC or other mod that would permit a turbo on a 350, and there almost certainly never will be: the cowling is too tight. Even if they modified the cowling (which I would think is virtually impossible given that it's plastic), I would think you would lose as much from the added drag as you'd gain by the added power.

4. The owners' group (http://www.caart.org) is outstanding (even if not as good as BT). There is an annual subscription ($50 last time I knew) but it's worth it.

5. Cessna saved the airplane and the owners when Columbia went bankrupt, but their pricing is insane for both parts and new airplanes. (Which makes them virtually identical to HBC in my view, except that HBC builds better airplanes overall, at least on the piston side.) The new panel looks really cool, but it doesn't seem to add anything material (really a Garmin issue rather than a Cessna issue). Overall, it's hard to like what Cessna has done with the airplane: they made a beautiful airplane look like a pimp, raised the price to absurd levels, made the parts process an absurdly expensive nightmare, screwed the dealers and maintainers, and did just what you would expect if you've dealt with them in other contexts. On the other hand, Columbia went bankrupt by building an outstanding airplane at a reasonable price and maintaining good customer service, so I'm guessing there's a message there.

Great post Marc.
I'll have to say that I looked hard at the 400 before deciding to get a Bonanza. I don't think I ever saw a used 400 that had over 800 hours and had not had a top end done (usually under warranty), so there is definitely something going on with the cylinders in that plane. Ultimately the deciding factor for me was load-handling.

Bill

OK, did some math, not going to work. It's not much faster than a TN BO down low and burns considerbale more fuel. Also, the useful load seems to come in around 1100 lbs. After you add TKS you are down to 1000 or so which is really only 2 people and some small bags to be legal.

I would rather have a fixed gear TN Legacy at that time. Same speed, 1/2 the cost, same useful load considering fuel needed.

Useful load is only 1000#s for the TTx. Maybe the Columbias were lighter.


http://cessna.com/single-engine/cessna- ... ights.html