I've been eyeballing downsizing from a turbocharged twin and a single engine burger-getter to a turbo charged fast single.

I'm still leaning towards a TR182 (turbo/retract 182), or possibly a T210.

The Cessna (nee Columbia, nee LanceAir) 400 has caught my eye. Where as the SR22 wingspan will not fit my hangar, the Cessna-lumbia 400 and 350 will. Don't know much about them.

Anyone got experience or know of good places to find out more?

Someone posted the POH and I made some comparisons to the Bonanza in this earlier thread viewtopic.php?f=37&t=118952&hilit=Ttx&view=unread#unread

Outstanding airplane, very well built. Cirrus would not exist if it came with a parachute...

I purchased my 2003 Columbia 350 in 2007 and have around 1400 hours in type. I only had 120 hours at the time so she is about all I know. $180K up to brand new price for an all glass utility category airplane that will cruise 165-170 KTAS on 11.5 GPH LOP at 10,000 feet.
The turbo 400's will cruise around 195-200 at 17,000 feet on about 17 gallons LOP.
VNE is 235, Top of green arc is 179. Speed brakes have no speed restriction.
What else would you like to know

Those of use who have made the pilgrimage to Ada OK think the ultimate turbo single is a Tornado Alley turbonormalized A36 with tip tanks.

Turbonormalized means you keep the high compression ratio and efficiency of a normal engine, A36 means six seats and good handling qualities. Tip tanks mean you can stay high, skip,the fuel stop and and go far.

But, you know, asking on BT means we're biased.

I thought the 400 was one of the nicest handling planes I have ever flown. In 5 minutes you will forget you are flying with a side control. It is far smoother than what Cirrus has, which they call a side yoke, and it feels and moves like a center yoke.

You will wonder why every standard flying airplane doesn't have one.

My favorite instructor said: Your Columbia is a good airplane, almost as good as a Bonanza.

I'm not knocking the G36 at all. Nice plane.

But I don't need the extra seats of a G36.

A straight up NA G36 is $120k+ more than a turbocharged Columbia 400 with G1000 of the similar year and hours. A TN G36 is way more than the same year/hours COL4 with TKS. And way, way, way more than an Avidyne COL4. Even here on BT, straight up TN-A36+TKS (and a nice one at that) is more money than I'm looking at for a COL4 with under 1000 hours on it that is more than two decades newer.

Since most of my flying these days is just me, or me + 1 and I like riding fast and high in the cool smooth teens (even with the nose-hose) whenever the winds allow it, a fast 4-place turbocharged single makes sense.

A COL4 would be pretty attractive for what I want to do with it. It would be more than I want to spend, at the low end of that market.

I think a low time, late model Bo is just out of reach. If I'm going budget end, it would probably be the TR182, which other than being kinda slow, would also work.

What's your budget? I looked at cirrus then col400 then lancair, I love my lancair ES

Experimental avionics are so much more superior

Jesse is right.

Two things concerned me about the 400 when I was looking at them several years ago. First, virtually every 400 I'd seen advertised had at least one top overhaul. Some of them had multiple tops within their first 1,000 hours. I understand that power is not free, but it seemed like an aircraft that tends to go through cylinders.

The other issue was with the windows. If you needed to replace the windows it involved cutting out the composite, changing the windows and then patching (and painting) the composite. You may not ever need to change the glass, but that is a lot of work for something that should not be a lot of work. They may have come up with a better process in the last few years.

All of this said, the owners rave about these airplanes so they must be doing something right. I suspect they are kind of like Corvettes in that they are a ton of fun to drive but you know they are not the most durable thing on the road.

I don't think E-AB is the right thing for me. For whatever stupid reason, I think I want to stay with type-certificated.

FWIW, I had a 2002 Corvette convertible 6-speed and drove the snot out of it. It never gave me a minute's worth of trouble. Other than oil and filter changes, and a $35 plastic under-body airscoop that succumbed to an armadillo on a dark road near El Paso, never a wrench turned on it. Great car, loved it.

from what i understand, the designers of the airframe were very frustrated with all of the changes they had to make to appease the type-certification process, and the resulting product was several hundred pounds heavier due to this

conjecture though, i've never saw any supporting details

If you fly the 400 at 75% power in cruise the cylinders should last longer. Many 400 drivers were flying 80+% power. Annuals will likely be a bit more for the 400 than 182T.
The Cessna 350 will outperform the 182T and cruises around 170 KTAS at 15,000 feet
On 14 GPH. I know of a 2004 350 that the owner is ready to sell.

I have 75 hours on my TTx. Great IFR platform. Fast. Handles like a dream. I fly mine at 65% power LOP. Typically plan on about 172KTAS at 8000 ft, 182KTAS at 12000ft. Right around 200KTAS when getting up into FL180 region. It will go faster, but will cost cylinder life. Fuel burn at 65% power is in the 15-15.5 GPH range. 38GPH in the take off climb configuration.

Lancair IV it goes 60kts faster!