In the interest of accuracy, the Columbia 300 (350?) was certified as spin resistant based on a rudder limiter. Hence I disagree with item 6 on your list. BTW the Cirrus has been spin tested and is recoverable as is the Columbia 350. Neither were certified that way. As for item 8, it may be here soon but it was going to be available “real soon now” when I flew a Columbia 300 3 years ago.
The false promises and the need of the Lancair (now Columbia) sales people to post inaccurate and deceptive statements (like Gina) turned me off. I was concerned about the company but I feel it is solid now, Columbia production is going well and I agree that there is nothing magical about getting the plane serviced. Why are people associated with Columbia so often like Gina? I do not see many Cirrus people, and there are a lot more of them, doing this crap.
Money does matter. If it doesn’t then why not consider the new Sino-Swearingin or a Gulfstream V?
I think comparing a Columbia 350 to an SR22GTS is valid. They begin to be close in price and the tradeoffs are interesting. It has been a long time since I flew a Columbia. I didn’t post earlier because I thought there were others better suited. After reading the inaccurate references in your list of items I have broken down.
I like the Columbia. I particularly like better fuse, alt static and alt air access. Flap indication is nicer than Cirrus. I also think the interior construction is more durable. In fact I think several things are built to a higher price point including the use of carbon fiber. Steep turns are rock solid. The seats were an immediate killer item however. My wife and I both fly so I need a seat that adjusts easily and not by turning a screw. I assume that is still an item that Oregon Aero will change “real soon now”. Visibility is better in the Cirrus as was headroom compared to the 300 I flew. On the plus side for the Columbia, I happen to like the solid feeling of the wing structure. However, I really wish Columbia would stop being hard headed and offer the BRS system as an option. Other thoughts include the rear seat of the Columbia being easier to fold down but the Cirrus having a better organized avionics stack. I like the single lever power control on the Cirrus but many people don’t and I can see their point. It is a matter of preference. I find the Columbia prettier on the outside (except the nose wheel which seems out of place) but the Cirrus I like better on the inside. BOth are very nice so it is a matter of preference in both cases. When measured the same way (kts not mph, 75% power not 85%) the SR22G2 and 350 are within a knot or two of each other. This was also proven when Scott Prinz flew his 350 vs an SR22G2 so there is real world data to back that up.
More thoughts: I prefer the Columbia flap hinges. The Columbia doors cause fewer problems closing. However, Cirrus aircraft fly just fine with the door cracked open. I don’t think it would be a good thng to have a Columbia door come open in flight.
Gina managed to hint at one thing that is true. For the poor hapless sole trying to get honest input please do remember that this board represents a biased view point just as the LOPA board does. When you make a nearly half million dollar choice, you do get defensive about it. Then again, you have voted with your dollars. That is unless you are Scott Prinz. He had a Cirrus, sold it, got a Columbia, sold it and went back to a Cirrus.
Ok, enough rambling thoughts for now. Can’t we agree they are both nice planes that are very similar but have slightly different personalities and let people fly what they like and what suits them?
[edited to add the word NOT where it was left out by mistake. I meant to say I don’t see as many Cirrus people talking trash as Columbia people. Due to different sales models?]