SR20 vs SR22 vs Lancair Columbia vs C182 Decision

Guest Discussion
1

I have been trying to decide among the airplanes which would best suit my needs (SR20,SR22,Columbia, and C182).

My future criteria is unknown, but currently I would like a plane to do several hundred mile trips, and at some point ideally be able to fly to Colorado from California, but that would probably require a more complex plane.

In the meantime, I want to build up hours, fly in the most safety and comfort that I can.

I thought about buying a used 182 and then going bigger/faster, but the SR20 seems very appealing.

Did others do a similar comparison among this class of plane? Why did people pick the SR20 over the Columbia (besides price, and perhaps availability)?

Thanks,

2

I am literally trying to figure out the same thing as I do my training. There are sr-20’s at the airport where I am training in Santa Monica. I’ve seen the inside, but haven’t managed a ride yet. No 300’s

What I like about the columbia is that because of its higher cruise and bigger tanks, I think it is a more versatile plane. You could take 4 people and bags and still get 600nm out of her. I am not as sure about the Sr-20. And the 182 compares as far as load goes, but now you are talking a lot slower. And while people are quick to say speed doesn’t matter - speed translates into range.

I want something that can get me to Tahoe or to Vail from LA.

A nice 182 is going to be around 100K or less. Then figure 40K for real nice avionics. Heck throw in paint and a new interior. Your still looking at 100k less than the 300. On the other hand, the 300 has a FIVE YEAR waranty…

It is not easy. Someone told me I should get a used 210 turbo. Have you looked into that?

3

I have been trying to decide among the airplanes which would best suit my needs (SR20,SR22,Columbia, and C182).

My future criteria is unknown, but currently I would like a plane to do several hundred mile trips, and at some point ideally be able to fly to Colorado from California, but that would probably require a more complex plane.

In the meantime, I want to build up hours, fly in the most safety and comfort that I can.

I thought about buying a used 182 and then going bigger/faster, but the SR20 seems very appealing.

Did others do a similar comparison among this class of plane? Why did people pick the SR20 over the Columbia (besides price, and perhaps availability)?

Thanks,

My wife and I decided on an SR20 two years ago without seeing or flying the airplane. We didn’t meet the sales rep (Woody) and only spoke to him on two occassions prior to sending in our check. We purposely chose not to fly or see the SR20 (except for photos) because we didn’t want our emotions to become too overwhelmingly involved. May sound strange, but we thought an analysis based on facts would be more reliable than one based on a sales experience. We ranked each plane using standard objective criteria such as range, avionics, payload, price, etc., and subjective criteria such as design innovativeness, perceived value retention, and looks. After this process, it was clear that, in total, the SR20 offered more safety, visibility, spaciousness, speed and styling than any of the competitors. We have since flown the SR20 and, so far, have no regrets.

4

Further to your question, I have been disappointed (though greatful) to learn that the actual useful load in the cirrus is closer to the 800 pound range.

Obviously, it depands on how you fly, but to me this is a 3 person airplane. And in that case I think a c-182 with 40K worth of avionics might be a more useful, though nearly not as attractive, aircraft.

The Columbia 300 will probably not be as far off of specs as the sr20 is, but the 299K price DOES NOT INCLUDE the avro screen. So think over 300K and two year wait…

5

My wife and I decided on an SR20 two years ago without seeing or flying the airplane. We didn’t meet the sales rep (Woody) and only spoke to him on two occassions prior to sending in our check. We purposely chose not to fly or see the SR20 (except for photos) because we didn’t want our emotions to become too overwhelmingly involved. May sound strange, but we thought an analysis based on facts would be more reliable than one based on a sales experience. We ranked each plane using standard objective criteria such as range, avionics, payload, price, etc.,>
It’s interesting to me that you came to this conclusion, because my experience observing the Cirrus at several shows leads me to approach the question in a different way. If seems to me that if you judge STRICTLY by the numbers you could view the SR20 vs, say, a used 182 as a somewhat close call. The 182 is almost as fast, it has a long fleet record, a used one would be significantly cheaper. Depending on the model the payload is probably better. But if you SEE the planes or take a test flight in one of them, it stops being even a close call. It’s like looking at a real estate ad when you read about some property and think, “Well, they’re offering three bedrooms for the same amount of money as this other place is charging for only two bedrooms.” But then you see the two places and realize you’d love to live in one and not in the other. THat is why I think that getting more of the planes into the fleet will mean escalating sales for Cirrus.

(Lancair would also be nice, but if you think there are production problems or delays with Cirrus, what about this? I will bet any amount of money that there will not be 10 Columbias delivered in the next year. Probably not 5.)

6

I have about 700 hours in a C-182 and about 50 in my new SR20.

Believe me there is no comparison.

Even highly modified to cruise with the SR20 the C-182 is absolutely primitive.

The Sr20’s useful load is supposed to go up about 150 lbs. or so and the C-182’s equipped useful load isn’t that much greater while it needs about 120 lbs. or so of it to carry the extra fuel it needs for the same range.

Comfort and handling are enough is enough of an improvement to make it no contest but the view really wraps it up.

The difference in value down the road should really favor the SR20.

However if you must have a C-182 put aileron and flap gap seals on it to improve low speed handling (you won’t have a parachute for that emergency), add composite tanks, aero dynamic mods, a highly modified 520 c.i. engine, and an Apollo GX60 then you will have a good Skylane - or - I’ll sell you mine.

If you add altitude hold and an Apollo MX-20 you will be able fly right with the Cirrus and probably a little faster but unless you throttle back a bit it will burn about half more fuel.

Further to your question, I have been disappointed (though greatful) to learn that the actual useful load in the cirrus is closer to the 800 pound range.

Obviously, it depands on how you fly, but to me this is a 3 person airplane. And in that case I think a c-182 with 40K worth of avionics might be a more useful, though nearly not as attractive, aircraft.

The Columbia 300 will probably not be as far off of specs as the sr20 is, but the 299K price DOES NOT INCLUDE the avro screen. So think over 300K and two year wait…

7

Doug,

Thanks for the info – just goes to show you that flying the planes is the best way to make a compairison. I’m going to try to get up in a SR20 in the nest few weeks. As for the Columbia 300, I am going to visit the factory. I am actually leaning towards the 300 based on the 4 persons, 100lb bags, useful range test.

Would love to hear arguments against it.

The down side. Is between 279-299K plus 15 for the screen. Wait period is about the same.

It’ll be interesting to see how both of these planes fare down the road.

8

Would love to hear arguments against it.

Is between 279-299K plus 15 for the screen. Wait period is about the same.
Argument for the Lancair is its speed and general elegance. Two arguments against it, as I see them.

  1. Costs 50% more. A hundred thousand bucks is a hundred thousand bucks.

  2. I personally would be very skeptical that Lancair’s wait period would be as “short” as Cirrus’s. Don’t know exactly how long the Lancair backorder list is now. But it is clear that there’s a huge difference in output capacity. Cirrus is on the verge of having delivered 40, versus 1 for Lancair; and although a lot of Cirrus’s estimates have been overoptimistic, the evidence they’re giving to potential investors makes the one-a-day-by-late-2000 rate seem realistic. I’ve heard or seen no reports suggesting that Lancair is going to be able to ramp up its production rate anytime soon. If you placed an order for a SR20 and a Columbia on June 1, 2000, I bet the SR20 would be available significantly sooner. But they’re both nice planes

9

The “general elegance” is an interesting concept.

I really liked the familiar engine and prop controls and 310 HP of the Columbia but my impression of the people I was dealing with and the looks of the aircraft really worked against the Columbia.

The SR20 really seemed to be a far more thorough development and though it took me a little while to get used to the profile of the tail I had plenty of time (more than 4.5 years to delivery) and I really love it now.

Would love to hear arguments against it.

Is between 279-299K plus 15 for the screen. Wait period is about the same.
Argument for the Lancair is its speed and general elegance. Two arguments against it, as I see them.

  1. Costs 50% more. A hundred thousand bucks is a hundred thousand bucks.
  1. I personally would be very skeptical that Lancair’s wait period would be as “short” as Cirrus’s. Don’t know exactly how long the Lancair backorder list is now. But it is clear that there’s a huge difference in output capacity. Cirrus is on the verge of having delivered 40, versus 1 for Lancair; and although a lot of Cirrus’s estimates have been overoptimistic, the evidence they’re giving to potential investors makes the one-a-day-by-late-2000 rate seem realistic. I’ve heard or seen no reports suggesting that Lancair is going to be able to ramp up its production rate anytime soon. If you placed an order for a SR20 and a Columbia on June 1, 2000, I bet the SR20 would be available significantly sooner. But they’re both nice planes
10

I really liked the familiar engine and prop controls and 310 HP of the Columbia but my impression of the people I was dealing with and the looks of the aircraft really worked against the Columbia.

Care to expand on the “impression of the people.” Lancair has been designing planes a long time. Do you mean salespeople? Support people? Did they mislead?

Dean G (potential buyer of one of these two planes)

11

The “general elegance” is an interesting concept.

…

The SR20 really seemed to be a far more thorough development>

I didn’t mean to suggest that the Columbia was more elegant than the Cirrus, though in context it might have looked that way. What I mean is:

  • it’s a faster airplane than the Cirrus;

  • it’s a very substantially more expensive plane;

  • they’re both very stylish, though the Columbia is not quite as roomy inside;

  • the odds of the Columbia being produced in volume seem much worse than for the Cirrus.

The two companies both faced a series of challenges: 1) designing a modern plane; 2) getting it certified; 3) getting adequate finance; and 4) tooling up for large scale production. Each of the companies succeeded on the first two. Cirrus is miles ahead on 3 and 4

12

I really liked the familiar engine and prop controls and 310 HP of the Columbia but my impression of the people I was dealing with and the looks of the aircraft really worked against the Columbia.

Care to expand on the “impression of the people.” Lancair has been designing planes a long time. Do you mean salespeople? Support people? Did they mislead?

Dean G (potential buyer of one of these two planes)

I’ll chime in here and let you know my experiences with Lancair that led to my purchase of a Cirrus.

I called the factory several years ago and requested literature. I received it quickly and was ready to visit the Lancair factory (long trip from SC) and fly the prototype.

I called several times and never received a return phone call. I mean NEVER! I took a test ride in a Cirrus with Bruce Gunter (sales dude for east coast) and decided I loved the Cirrus and liked Bruce and the test pilot who flew down with him.

I hemmed and hawed (Southern for could not make up my mind) for six months while enjoying the thrills of renting the local garbage. (The final decision came when I showed up at the airport to rent an Arrow for a business trip, opened the hangar door, and surprise, no plane. Seemed it had crashed the week before because the pilot ran out of gas. Unfortunately, no one called to let me know and the subsequent airline ticket cost more than my first car)

Anyhow, the next day I planned to send my check to Cirrus and before I did, called Lancair one more time. I am still waiting for them to return my call (year later?!?)

Additionally, (as I have said before, and I will say it again in this forum) is that Cirrus made a wise choice to abandon the kit market to produce a production plane. They are very focused on the goal. Lancair has not made this same commitment and it shows in an inability to get going.

My bet is that the Columbia 300 and Lancair will be an also ran in the industry and Cirrus will dominate. (If there are more than 100 Col. 300’s built (by Lancair) I will be very surprised) The Klapmeir’s or Cirrus, by contrast, are impressive visonaries with focus. Look out world.

Speaking of elegant (earlier reply), the Lancair is a better looking plane than the Cirrus, especially from the rear quarter. Other than that, the Cirrus, because of the founders vision, the lead in production and marketing, and the orders on the books, is the best thing going.

Pick a Cirrus and quit Hemmin’ and Hawin’

Mark

13

I really liked the familiar engine and prop controls and 310 HP of the Columbia but my impression of the people I was dealing with and the looks of the aircraft really worked against the Columbia.

Care to expand on the “impression of the people.” Lancair has been designing planes a long time. Do you mean salespeople? Support people? Did they mislead?

Dean G (potential buyer of one of these two planes)

Nothing personal, they may have been busy or understaffed at the time but I had a hard time getting answers to questions.

It may be that with Lancair I was talking to marketing people whereas I was able to talk to the Klapmeiers and some of their engineers at Oshkosh.

Lancair was charging for demo rides. If it had been a closer decision I probably would have taken the ride but as it was they missed their last chance to impress. The ride may have been more impressive than comparing the two aircraft on the ground and climbing in and out of mockup fuselages.

To me the Columbia seemed like a very nice homebuilt aircraft whereas the SR20 seemed to be a more integrated design - especially the interior and panel.

The 310 HP of the Columbia was its really big plus but if the SR22 had been available it would have been no contest at all for me.

I suspect that a year or two from now SR22’s may outnumbers Columbias.

Comparing aircraft and prices in 1995 I liked the SR20 at $141,500 better than the Columbia at $185,000.

I ended up getting the SR20 for that price plus the cost of upgrades to the base aircraft (Garmin avionics, autopilot, etc.) and options (“C”, #-bld prop, and leather)whereas the Columbia’s base price increased $100,000.

Cirrus’s upgrades made the SR20 more appealing whereas the $100k price increase of the Columbia took it completely out of the running.

It would be nice if there were a few people with at least ten to twenty hours in both the SR20 and Columbia.

I’d be glad to take a Columbia for a week or two to attempt an unbiased report.

14

I had the same experience with Lancair, and have called several times with never a return phone call. Each time I call, I complain that I have not heard from them, and that I am a qualified buyer. Very frustrating. I did get the literature quickly though.

Richard

I really liked the familiar engine and prop controls and 310 HP of the Columbia but my impression of the people I was dealing with and the looks of the aircraft really worked against the Columbia.

Care to expand on the “impression of the people.” Lancair has been designing planes a long time. Do you mean salespeople? Support people? Did they mislead?

Dean G (potential buyer of one of these two planes)

I’ll chime in here and let you know my experiences with Lancair that led to my purchase of a Cirrus.

I called the factory several years ago and requested literature. I received it quickly and was ready to visit the Lancair factory (long trip from SC) and fly the prototype.

I called several times and never received a return phone call. I mean NEVER! I took a test ride in a Cirrus with Bruce Gunter (sales dude for east coast) and decided I loved the Cirrus and liked Bruce and the test pilot who flew down with him.

I hemmed and hawed (Southern for could not make up my mind) for six months while enjoying the thrills of renting the local garbage. (The final decision came when I showed up at the airport to rent an Arrow for a business trip, opened the hangar door, and surprise, no plane. Seemed it had crashed the week before because the pilot ran out of gas. Unfortunately, no one called to let me know and the subsequent airline ticket cost more than my first car)

Anyhow, the next day I planned to send my check to Cirrus and before I did, called Lancair one more time. I am still waiting for them to return my call (year later?!?)

Additionally, (as I have said before, and I will say it again in this forum) is that Cirrus made a wise choice to abandon the kit market to produce a production plane. They are very focused on the goal. Lancair has not made this same commitment and it shows in an inability to get going.

My bet is that the Columbia 300 and Lancair will be an also ran in the industry and Cirrus will dominate. (If there are more than 100 Col. 300’s built (by Lancair) I will be very surprised) The Klapmeir’s or Cirrus, by contrast, are impressive visonaries with focus. Look out world.

Speaking of elegant (earlier reply), the Lancair is a better looking plane than the Cirrus, especially from the rear quarter. Other than that, the Cirrus, because of the founders vision, the lead in production and marketing, and the orders on the books, is the best thing going.

Pick a Cirrus and quit Hemmin’ and Hawin’

Mark

15

Interesting to hear all of these problems. I have been using e-mail to talk to them, and it has been fine. Didn’t try the phone. I’ve used Phone with Cirrus and they are certainly accomodating. I believe, based on research, that noth companies are 24 months out on a current order. Lancair order number is not nearly as high as Cirrus (in the 100’s vs. the 500’s)