Evaluating Purchase

Guest Discussion
1

We are looking to acquire a GA aircraft for Company use. Based out of Lakeville (KLVN), our journeys would take us to Kansas City (Gardner), Ankeny, St. Louis (Spirit of St. Louis), Eau Claire, Indianapolis, and Grand Rapids, MI. We have test flown the SR-22GTS several times and are impressed with it. We have also recently test flown the Lancair Columbia 400. If one could take the best of both planes, you would have one incredible machine! However, I’m simply looking for feedback from those who may have also looked at the Columbia 350 / 400 platform as a basis for comparison with the SR22 platform.

Any thoughts, suggestions and insights would be greatly appreciated!

Tim Eklund

2

I wish the SR22 had the 400 speed for sure, but at the end of the day I bought the Cirrus for 2 reasons. First I’m 6’2" and therefore the Lancair was uncomfortable. Secondly, planes have problems and Cirrus has 20 times the Service Centers accross the country. Cirrus is also selling about 5 times the planes, so that should tell you something.

3

In reply to:

If one could take the best of both planes, you would have one incredible machine! However, I’m simply looking for feedback from those who may have also looked at the Columbia 350 / 400 platform as a basis for comparison with the SR22 platform.
Any thoughts, suggestions and insights would be greatly appreciated!
Tim Eklund

I have often said the same of various women I have dated, but nothing is perfect.
For my 2 cents, I find that the physical fit (mostly width) of the Cirrus fits for long term comfort needs.
You have to live in a long term relationship with your plane. Make sure you are comfortable. There is more to an airplane relationship than just finding a “hot” one.
A few knots faster will usually only get you there 15 min sooner, at best.

4

Most who’ve flown both, and are over 6’ tall, complain about the Lancair roof being too low, and the ergonomics not right (control yoke too far forward, seat back won’t adjust, among other things.)

Scott Prinz had an SR2X, sold it and got a Lancair 350, didn’t like it and traded it in on a new SR22.

The parachute was a major selling point for my wife, who is an anxious traveler.

A major selling point for me was its roominess and comfort, together with the MANY more service centers for Cirrus. Unless you are in a major metro area, you could be looking at a lot of traveling for service with the Lancair, and don’t even think about a problem when on the road!

If you carry a lot of stuff on trips, then an A36 has more baggage space, altho I’ve sorta got the hang of how to load the SR22. If you regularly fill all four seats, and need full fuel, then an SR isn’t the top pick (altho neither is the A36…it’s really a three place airplane, as is the SR22.) A 206 is about the only piston single that will do that, and it’s slow.

5

I went thru the decision making process, test flew the L400 and SR22GTS and bought the cirrus. yes, there are some features I’d like the cirrus to have, but overall I’m 6-3 and wanted comfort plus avionics package. The L400 has a SCREW to adjust the seat, not acceptable for that price of airplane and the cockpit egress is cramped as is vision forward. Sit in the back of a cirrus, you’ll see what its all about.

SR22GTS pickup in Sep 05.

J

6

If you are posting a question to this board asking which airplane is the best aircraft for your mission and your money, I would have to say you are setting yourself up for disappointment. These post are ridiculous and are filled with mis-information. You are asking the opinion of CIRRUS owners. They spent an enormous amount of money on an inferior airplane. They are not going to tell you the truth in comparison. Comments from individuals regarding service centers are not qualified. There are dozens of Columbia service centers scattered across the country. The Columbia is not an exotic spaceship, it is an airplane. The same Continental engine as the Cirrus, same avionics package (although installed and wired through a superior electrical system). Composites are very similar in both aircraft and if major damage occurs, should only be repaired by a specialists. Cirrus owners write their opinion and have never flown a Columbia 400, this amazes me. How can one give their “2 cents” when they have never flown the competition airplane for evaluation. One posts is in reference to SPEED. It says the Colombia is only faster as high altitude. You can settle this argument real quick. All PIM manuals are available online. No aircraft company in the world would ever publish numbers LESS than actual performance numbers. I do agree it is unfair to compare the Cirrus SR22 GTS/? and the Columbia 400. They are not even in the same class. The comment about money is simple more design, more testing, better quality = more money. This is the th world is. Most owners of Columbia aircraft have never questioned the cost, because they know quality cost money. The parachute, I have to admit a great marketing tool, but try to order one without it…There is a reason it is there. Finally, go to the NTSB website and do your research. Here you will find numbers and statistics NOT found on the Cirrus website. And one final note, just because a manufacture produces more numbers of their product than a competing manufacture does not make it superior. Good Luck in your search for a new airplane.

7

Tim,
I would recommend flying both Columbia and SR22 within the same week. Take your time going through each aircraft after the demo. Create a list of likes and dislikes. Look at build quality, resale, and comfort. Talk to the A/P’s that work on each aircraft. Talk to pilots of Cirrus and Columbia’s (Lancair changed its name on Monday)

Disclaimer: I am a sales rep for Columbia Aircraft Mfg Co. I can arrange a demo if you visit OSH. Just email me.

Update - This link has the 10 ten reasons to purchase a Columbia as taken from our new web site.

http://flycolumbia.com/newsite/Columbia/Aircraft_Sales/

Frank Grabos
Columbia Aircraft Mfg Co.
www.flycolumbia.com

8

Both are great airplanes with comparable performance so I focused on comfort and ergometrics. Before making my decision I insisted on test flying the SR22 and Columbia 350. As both are good cruising airplanes you can expect to spend a lot of time in them, with 3 hour legs not uncommon. Although I’m not particularly tall at 5’9", my head hit the headliner in the Lancair and I noticed the seat were semi-reclined to increase the headroom. For me, this seating position was uncomfortable. I also found the location of the Columbia side-stick awkward. These were the deciding factors for me in addition to the strength of Cirrus company as a going concern.

I strongly suggest you fly both and see if these factors are important to you.

Dorian
N224DD

9

One possible advantage for Cirrus: There may be an available rental SR20 or SR22 near you. This would be important if you want training before your delivery to get time in type for lower insurance. Also, you may need to fly when your plane is in warranty service or getting an annual inspection. Cirrus has a link on their website for rental centers in the US.

Compare the nearest service center to you from Columbia and Cirrus.

Also, two of the fractinal ownership companies in GA chose Cirrus. Price and service centers may have been the major factors there.

Our local FBO / Club in Denver (KAPA) has two rental Cirrus (SR20 & SR22)and is considering another SR22

Personally, I like the interior of the Cirrus better. I like the avionics layout, Throttle lever, seats, tinted windows and more. It just looks like a BMW compared to a Kia.

Ken

10

It depends on your mission at hand. By the way, the Lancair 400 only goes faster than the SR22 at very high altitudes where continuous oxygen is needed. The best comparision is to look at the SR22 versus the Columbia 350. The 400 is a turbocharged plane that cost $100,000 more for the pleasure offlying above 20,000 feet at speeds above 215 knots.
My opinion is that, at those altitudes, you are better off with a pressurized airplane for greater safety and comfort. You need a lot of oxygen to be comfortable that high and an O2 failure could be serious.
Cirrus is a more solid company than Lancair. The parachute is a clear advantage over the Lancair.
So, if your mission is to HAVE to go that fast but only at a high altitude (which means trips of at least 500 miles or more) I do not otherwise see an advantage of the 400.
Having said that, I have not actually flown the 400 so I cannot give an assessment of the flying characteristics otherwise. Comparing the 350 to the SR22 results in the Cirrus winning hands down on all aspects.

11

Thanks to all for your replies. I guess what I’m wondering is if anyone on this Board test flew the Lancair 350 / 400 and then chose the SR22 over the Lancair.

The Lancair does offer some things I wish the Cirrus had, for example, the “steam guages” are at eye level vs. on the knee bolster…allows one to keep their heads up in case the PFD goes down. Lancair also offers dual 60 amp alternators vs. the 60 amp / 20 amp system in the Cirrus. Lancair is also spin certified whereas Cirrus is not and flaps can come down about 10 mph higher in the Lancair vs. Cirrus.

By the same token, Cirrus’ TKS, TAWS, Traffic Alert and roominess do have the Columbia 350 / 400 beat.

Maybe at the end of the day, it’s splitting hairs. But on a purchase approach .4 to .5 of a million, we do want to make the best choice.

12

…The Lancair does offer some things I wish the Cirrus had, for example, the “steam guages” are at eye level vs. on the knee bolster…allows one to keep their heads up in case the PFD goes down.

True- the 3 steam gauges in Cirrus are low, but the scan on them and the #1 nav com is very easy in the event you lost both pfd and mfd. In VFR, this is no problem, the plane is very stable- holds altitude and heading extremely well, and glancing at the gauges and then outside is no problem. In the soup, you don’t need to look outside, and here too the scan is no problem. But in the extrme situation where you had lost mfd and pfd and communication ability and were in serious instrument conditions, you could consider the parachute option in the cirrus, but in the Lancair, you have a mandatory landing in your future.

13

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and feelings madam student.
Would you also care to share your qualifications and the basis of your expertise.

14

Thank you for your very direct reply.

I realize the Columbia 400 and the SR22-GTS are not fair comparisons.

Simply looking for comments - positive or otherwise - from current Cirrus owners who either considered / test flew / purchased a Lancair 350 / 400, and what they found to be the deciding factor / factors in their decisions. My guess is that many Cirrus owners also evaluated the Columbia line because it is so similar to the Cirrus SR22 line.

15

In reply to:

If you are posting a question to this board asking which airplane is the best aircraft for your mission and your money, I would have to say you are setting yourself up for disappointment. These post are ridiculous and are filled with mis-information. You are asking the opinion of CIRRUS owners. They spent an enormous amount of money on an inferior airplane. They are not going to tell you the truth in comparison. Comments from individuals regarding service centers are not qualified. There are dozens of Columbia service centers scattered across the country. The Columbia is not an exotic spaceship, it is an airplane. The same Continental engine as the Cirrus, same avionics package (although installed and wired through a superior electrical system). Composites are very similar in both aircraft and if major damage occurs, should only be repaired by a specialists. Cirrus owners write their opinion and have never flown a Columbia 400, this amazes me. How can one give their “2 cents” when they have never flown the competition airplane for evaluation. One posts is in reference to SPEED. It says the Colombia is only faster as high altitude. You can settle this argument real quick. All PIM manuals are available online. No aircraft company in the world would ever publish numbers LESS than actual performance numbers. I do agree it is unfair to compare the Cirrus SR22 GTS/? and the Columbia 400. They are not even in the same class. The comment about money is simple more design, more testing, better quality = more money. This is the th world is. Most owners of Columbia aircraft have never questioned the cost, because they know quality cost money. The parachute, I have to admit a great marketing tool, but try to order one without it…There is a reason it is there. Finally, go to the NTSB website and do your research. Here you will find numbers and statistics NOT found on the Cirrus website. And one final note, just because a manufacture produces more numbers of their product than a competing manufacture does not make it superior. Good Luck in your search for a new airplane.

Dear student Gina;
It warms the cockals of my heart and is a reflection of your impartiality to know that your family has an ownership interest in the Columbia franchise. I particularly enjoyed your nice story in SW Aviator
Perhaps we should send your comments above to the president of Columbia.
Remember, good salesmanship is a profession, not an opportunity to attack the competition

16

In reply to:

Tim,
I would recommend flying both Columbia and SR22 within the same week. Take your time going through each aircraft after the demo. Create a list of likes and dislikes. Look at build quality, resale, and comfort. Talk to the A/P’s that work on each aircraft. Talk to pilots of Cirrus and Columbia’s (Lancair changed its name on Monday)
Disclaimer: I am a sales rep for Columbia Aircraft Mfg Co. I can arrange a demo if you visit OSH. Just email me.
Frank Grabos
Columbia Aircraft Mfg Co.
www.flycolumbia.com

Fred,

That is excellent advice. I’m sure every COPA member agrees with your recommendation.

Your disclaimer that you are a Columbia Sales Rep adds credibility to your post as opposed to “student” Gina (see her post below) who destroyed any credibility by not disclosing her financial interest in Columbia aircraft.

17

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?]

18

In reply to:

Tim,
I would recommend flying both Columbia and SR22 within the same week. Take your time going through each aircraft after the demo. Create a list of likes and dislikes. Look at build quality, resale, and comfort. Talk to the A/P’s that work on each aircraft. Talk to pilots of Cirrus and Columbia’s (Lancair changed its name on Monday)
Disclaimer: I am a sales rep for Columbia Aircraft Mfg Co. I can arrange a demo if you visit OSH. Just email me.
Update - This link has the 10 ten reasons to purchase a Columbia as taken from our new web site.
http://flycolumbia.com/newsite/Columbia/Aircraft_Sales/
Frank Grabos
Columbia Aircraft Mfg Co.
www.flycolumbia.com

Any word as to when they will be adding the parachute to the lancairs?

Is this the basis for the name change?

19

In reply to:

Columbia Aircraft Mfg. Co… (Lancair changed its name on Monday)…

As a historical note, the first aircraft manufacturing firm to bear the name Columbia was the Columbia Aircraft Company of Valley Stream, Long Island. The firm was founded in 1929 by Charles Levine, Giuseppe Bellanca and Clarence Chamberlain to acquire the rights to an aircraft that Bellanca had designed for the Wright company. This image from a 1945 sectional shows the Columbia Airport:

The firm kept busy during WW II building J2F-6 single-engine amphibians under license from Grumman. One of the Columbia-built aircraft is in the EAA Airventure Museum in Oshkosh.

The Columbia Aircraft Company was purchased by Commonwealth Aircraft in 1946, and built 275 examples of the Skyranger two-seat light airplane for the expected postwar aviation boom. The boom failed to materialize, and Commonwealth went bankrupt in 1947. Happily, the new Columbia Aircraft Manufacturing Co. is doing much better!

Cheers,
Roger

20

In reply to:

Dear student Gina;
It warms the cockals of my heart and is a reflection of your impartiality to know that your family has an ownership interest in the Columbia franchise. I particularly enjoyed your nice story in SW Aviator
Perhaps we should send your comments above to the president of Columbia.
Remember, good salesmanship is a profession, not an opportunity to attack the competition

Dennis,

Congratulations on a superb post. Best of all you probably taught “student” Gina a very good lesson. And that’s what being a student is all about.