Cjolumbia 400

Has anyone done a direct ocmparison of the Columbia 400 and the SR22-GTS? They appear so similiar, I was hoping someone had done the direct comparison and I’d be interested in their final perspective. I am trying to diecide which would be a better long term purchase. Thanks,


The Columbia 400 is in a class of its own with the turbo. The more direct compare is to look at a Cirrus SR 22 versus a Columbia 350. There is no turbo Cirrus (yet).

You are trying to compare a $590k plane with a $450k plane. Not a fair comparison. If you can afford the additional money, I would buy the 400 unless your wife needs the parachute. The wife won in my case!

Both in terms of price and in terms of target market the planes to compare are the Columbia 350 and the Cirrus SR22. Decide between those two. As for the 400, that is less a Cirrus vs. Columbia issue than a dollars and turbocharger need issue. As mentioned by others the turbo is nice for mountainous areas and the 400 is faster. However, for a lot of people the speed isn’t that much of an issue in real life and a 350 or SR22 will be easier to maintain and will have a lower initial purchase price. I suggest doing a typical flight profile and looking at what it tells you. I rarely go above 10K. How do you feel about oxygen? Many people don’t care for it and can find themselves at lower altitudes so as to avoid the hassles of O2. Then again, we all love speed so you may want bragging rights. Both t he SR22 and 350 will climb solidly to 12K and above. Good luck with your choice. All are fine aircraft.

If you get a Columbia be sure to get the optional seats. They bring the comfort level closer to the Cirrus. As for the parachute, you’ll have to decide what that means to you. For me it is a big comfort when flying at night or over low IMC.

The members’ section of COPA has a lot more information than the public side and is worth the investment if you are doing serious pre-purchase investigation on such an expensive item. Be sure to visit http://www.lancairpilots.org as there are a bunch of nice people there too and you can get a different set of biased opinions [:)]


In reply to:

You are trying to compare a $590k plane with a $450k plane. Not a fair comparison. If you can afford the additional money, I would buy the 400 unless your wife needs the parachute. The wife one in my case!

**Joe Joe Joe Joe Joe Joe Joe…**on the East Coast and for my normal flight profile a Turbo aircraft doesn’t make sense and it might not make sense to him either. If I lived where you live Joe I would lean towards a turbo …but certainly not here on the East Coast, or if my flying was in the Midwest. My typical flight altitude is 5-6k feet …and the flights are 1.5 hours long on average.

One also needs to consider the interior cabin size of the Cirrus vs the Lancair and the overall handling…so I don’t just think it is budget stuff to consider.

And – ahhhh how is the TBM :slight_smile: Certainly the prettiest paint scheme I have ever seen on a TBM ~

In reply to:

The wife one in my case!


The won thing my wife liked was the parachute! You were right…her decision 1 out! The parachute was another safety feature.

Wun way or another you’ll be addressing this issue if you choose to compare the too planes! LMAO[:D]

Of course you may be talking about which wife insisted on the BRS, right? Did wife “to” like the TBM better than the Cirrus?

I stand corrected Scott. I was thinking about my needs personally. I live in the mountains. My home is not bad at 2900 ft. but my cabin is at 6200 ft. The mountains in between make the MEA’s 12-14,000 MSL. So around here the turbo is great, but you are definately correct if you live in flat land. I wouldn’t have the extra maintenance of a turbo if I didn’t fly up high a lot.

So in the end if you are a flat lander, I would buy the SR22 unless you like flying with an oxygen mask on and like the discomfort of not being pressurized up that high.

Oh ya Scott, Have I said how much I love the TBM?! It’s an unbelievable plane. The only problem is I thought it would cut down my hours per year flying due to the extra 110 knots. It has done the opposite because now I find myself flying places I would have never dreamed of flying in the Cirrus. Oh well for the budget![;)]

All I kan say is you are a bastard![;)] I need to proof read a little closer.