Cessna 400

What is the mission? It's certainly a decent airplane but the turbo will result in increased maintenance. The benefits of the turbo can't be realized if you're not flying a real long distance to get really high (which kind of sucks without pressurization) or flying in the mountains.

If you don't truly need the turbo, and want that sort of plane, I'd consider the 350. Either way not going to be a short field or grass plane.

The cost of overhaul on a TSIO-550C is quite high if you don't need what it provides.
 
I'd mostly be hauling 1-2 people from Wichita to various oil refineries in Houston, Artesia, NM, Salt Lake City, and the corporate office in Dallas. The airplane would also be used for family trips (Indianapolis, Chicago, and Orlando being the most frequent). The turbo would be nice for heading across the Rockies between Denver and SLC.
 
I got to do a demo flight in one when they were still Columbia, I liked the plane and thought it was well built. If you like them and they do what you need, I don't know of anything that should make you run off.
 
I'd get a decked out RG lancair all day long over the overpriced 400, save money, better performance, spend less on mx, more plane for less money.

If you're one of those types with a irrational fear or experimentals, get a Cessna 210, want more speed & reliability get a turbine 210, still less money.

Probably not what you wanted to hear, but that's my two cents after being in the industry for a while.

You'll also want to add on a instrument rating to your PPL for any of these planes, and for those types of flights.
 
Last edited:
James331 said:
I'd get a decked out RG lancair all day long over the overpriced 400, save money, better performance, spend less on mx, more plane for less money.

If you're one of those types with a irrational fear or experimentals, get a Cessna 210, want more speed & reliability get a turbine 210, still less money.

Probably not what you wanted to hear, but that's my two cents after being in the industry for a while.
Click to expand...

Sounds to me like he wants it for business use as well. That makes it trickier to run an experimental, people already don't particularly like getting in certified GA aircraft, asking them to climb into something labeled in 2" block letters "Experimental" in a work setting may be asking too much.
 
jfrye01 said:
I'd mostly be hauling 1-2 people from Wichita to various oil refineries in Houston, Artesia, NM, Salt Lake City, and the corporate office in Dallas. The airplane would also be used for family trips (Indianapolis, Chicago, and Orlando being the most frequent). The turbo would be nice for heading across the Rockies between Denver and SLC.
Click to expand...

I really the like the 400's and "Yes" I've flown one. I personally would get a G1000 version over the Avidyne. IMO the sweet spot is the 2008's. They were still built in Bend by experienced composite people. Have all of the Cessna updates, seats, rudder, yaw dampener, etc. Very strong aircraft with great handling.
 
Flew one when it was a Lancair and really liked it. Very, very solid airplane. Can't think of even one bad thing to say, though Jessie is right. The one in the add will need an engine overhaul soon, and those don't come cheap.

Might want to price some oxygen systems while you're at it. Flying that turbo you're going to need them.
 
If you intend to jump the mountains, and especially with passengers, and in weather, you need a minimum of a 401, not a 400.
 
I flew a TTx recently with FIKI. The handling felt better than a cirrus in my opinion, and the speedbrakes were a nice feature on descent.
 
If you are gonna hop those mountains routinely...you need FIKI...period.
 
I've been flying the Rockies IFR and VFR for years without FIKI. I fly all four seasons and might not fly a handful of days a year because of weather. On those days I wouldn't trust any piston to take me through it. Those days require a King Air class aircraft or better IMO.

Turbo and O2 is a must have however.

This comes down to technique and experience more than aircraft placards, once again just my humble opinion.
 
I almost bought one but was talked out of it due to not having much experience which would relate to high insurance costs and harder time obtaining my IR which I was working on.

I was also told that if you land hard the landing assembly breaks easily and the maintenance costs are really high on that airplane. The useful load is not the greatest either.

That said, I bought a Turbo 182 and now with 200+ hours in her, I wish I had something faster. I find it nice having a turbo all the time getting off the runways quicker and holding power on all my climbs. I do some mountain flying as well and bought it because of that, but I would own a turbo over a non-turbo any day.

Other than recommending something with the garmin avionics for resale value and great options, good luck..
 
Thanks for all the replies, everyone. Personally, I would prefer a Lancair IV, but my dad, on the other hand (non-pilot) has a fear of experimental aircraft...Man, I do love those turbine 210's as well...:) However, it seems my dad and his friends (all non-pilots) are well set on the 400...maybe I can do some talking to them, I'll direct them to this thread...thanks everyone!
 
If you're talking about the Rockies and that sort of crossing in a single, I'd look at pressurization. Malibu, P210, turbine 210, Meridian... all great options. I think turbine would be better.

Given your experience level, a 400 isn't a bad place to start, but you (or rather your passengers) will outgrow it quickly.
 
And don't forget a good T310R would also be an excellent option (especially a RAM IV), but also non-pressurized. I think that route is really best. And, it's a twin, so if you go that route it would be very wise to get some very good twin training. Otherwise, you're no better off than a single, and possibly worse off. Well-trained and with good practice, you're better off.
 
The C400 is fine, but I would suggest also flying a Cirrus SR22. The are pretty much direct competitors, but you may find you like one better than the other, and you want to be buying the one you like better.
 
Take a look at the MEA's on the way to Salt Lake City. There is usually ice in the clouds at those MEA's in the Rockies if you are in the clouds that high up.

Turbo works when you are up high regardless where you are you can always fly high. You pour on the power and burn the gas, and you get to go FAST because the air is thin and the plane goes faster up there with sealevel power! It's expensive, like $200 per hour operating costs I bet in that plane.

Personally, I would love that plane if I could afford it.
 
jfrye01 said:
Thanks for all the replies, everyone. Personally, I would prefer a Lancair IV, but my dad, on the other hand (non-pilot) has a fear of experimental aircraft...Man, I do love those turbine 210's as well...:) However, it seems my dad and his friends (all non-pilots) are well set on the 400...maybe I can do some talking to them, I'll direct them to this thread...thanks everyone!
Click to expand...


I would not buy anything in a situation like this until these guys had all been flown somewhere in each of the options...

Grab all of them and find an SR22, a 400, a Malibu and a 210...have them all pile in...

Let me know what they say...

What is your purchase budget?
 
$200/hr in a C400? I'd figure closer to $300 when you look at true total cost...
 
Oh, and Kelvin is a wise man. :yes:
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Oh, and Kelvin is a wise man. :yes:
Click to expand...
Ditto that, Kelvin's suggestion to fly that mission with the intended passengers is spot on. Although I suspect the Malibu would be the end choice from a passenger comfort standpoint, my current dream plane for the X-ctry/travel mission.

'Gimp
 
AcroGimp said:
Although I suspect the Malibu would be the end choice from a passenger comfort standpoint, my current dream plane for the X-ctry/travel mission.
Click to expand...

It's a great plane. I spent last week in Florida going through the insurance required initial training on a Malibu. Not a ton of experience in them yet, maybe 20 hours, but I like it a lot so far.
 
jfrye01 said:
I'd mostly be hauling 1-2 people from Wichita to various oil refineries in Houston, Artesia, NM, Salt Lake City, and the corporate office in Dallas. The airplane would also be used for family trips (Indianapolis, Chicago, and Orlando being the most frequent). The turbo would be nice for heading across the Rockies between Denver and SLC.
Click to expand...

Have you looked into a Mooney? They would fit your mission beautifully. FIKI and all.
http://www.controller.com/ListingsDetail/Detail.aspx?lp=CNT&OHID=1341931
 
400 is a nice airplane. For your mission you'll definitely want FIKI. Also concur on the twin option....acquisition price cheaper, but with higher operating costs.
 
Kelvin said:
I would not buy anything in a situation like this until these guys had all been flown somewhere in each of the options...

Grab all of them and find an SR22, a 400, a Malibu and a 210...have them all pile in...

Let me know what they say...

What is your purchase budget?
Click to expand...
They are the prospective buyers, so that is probably a very good idea...haha
 
jfrye01 said:
They are the prospective buyers, so that is probably a very good idea...haha
Click to expand...

Easy to say. Actually arranging flights in all of those aircraft for all of the people would be a major PITA.
 
JasonM said:
I almost bought one but was talked out of it due to not having much experience which would relate to high insurance costs and harder time obtaining my IR which I was working on.

I was also told that if you land hard the landing assembly breaks easily and the maintenance costs are really high on that airplane. The useful load is not the greatest either.

Other than recommending something with the garmin avionics for resale value and great options, good luck..
Click to expand...

I've had great success transitioning pilots with under 300 hours into the airplane. It really is quite easy to fly.

Maintenance costs aren't too bad, where it gets ugly is when shops neglect maintenance on an aircraft then it adds up. There are only a half dozen shops that I'd consider taking one of these to for an annual. The landing gear does not break easily, not sure where you heard that. There have been some prop strikes where pilots wheel barrowed the airplane and ended up landing it on the nose; collapsing the gear. There is also a problem with landing without the gear bushings in place, it can cause a problem, but that roots back to taking it to a shop that knows what they are doing. The gear bushings will always be in place if it is properly maintained.

I agree with G1000 for resale...
 
Alexb2000 said:
I really the like the 400's and "Yes" I've flown one. I personally would get a G1000 version over the Avidyne. IMO the sweet spot is the 2008's. They were still built in Bend by experienced composite people. Have all of the Cessna updates, seats, rudder, yaw dampener, etc. Very strong aircraft with great handling.
Click to expand...

2008 is probably the pinnacle year, but 2006 and 2007 are very close. 2008's do have WAAS standard and about 35 extra pounds useful load. They have redesigned gear bushings that prevent them from walking out. The rudder is the same on all 400's and no 400 ever built has a yaw dampener. You would probably get more bang for your buck with a 2006.
 
dtaylor said:
2008 is probably the pinnacle year, but 2006 and 2007 are very close. 2008's do have WAAS standard and about 35 extra pounds useful load. They have redesigned gear bushings that prevent them from walking out. The rudder is the same on all 400's and no 400 ever built has a yaw dampener. You would probably get more bang for your buck with a 2006.
Click to expand...

I was in a hurry, I should have said rudder hold instead of yaw dampener. I can't think of another aircraft with that system. What year did that start?

In terms of different rudder I was referring to the rudder hinge AD. Didn't that apply to the earlier models and the newer ones had the update from the factory?
 
You'll also want an IR if you don't already have one for your mission.
 
jfrye01 said:
They are the prospective buyers, so that is probably a very good idea...haha
Click to expand...

Also, I'd not argue with them too much. Make the suggestions, but if they don't listen, don't push.

FIKI will be needed, but icing in the Rockies in a piston single? No thanks.

If you're interested in numbers for twins, let me know, I can give you a good run down of costs.
 
dtaylor said:
The landing gear does not break easily, not sure where you heard that.
Click to expand...

The salesman/dealer I was talking with actually had 5 of them for sale at the time. I was certain that was the airplane for me. He talked me out of that and into a lesser priced sale. That was one of the things he said they had seen at their cessna dealership.

I'm glad to hear otherwise. I still love the airplane.
 
For your trips you should really consider a PA46. Find some time and fly over to my old shop at KHUT, now called Midwest Malibu center. Tony could show you about any model to get a feel for the Malibu. I think there are at least 6 based at Jabarra too. My old Malibu lives there now.
 
Not to hijack the thread, but I've been interested in a Malibu as well.

Currently, I'm flying a Comanche. Would a Malibu be about 1.5x the hourly cost? 2x? More? Even though the Mirage is newer, I'm thinking I might like the straight Malibu better since it can (and should) be run LOP.

Currently, I figure 14gph in the Comanche. I've also heard Malibus are very "maintenance intensive".
 
Last edited:
For the money and mission, a King Air seems like a better deal long term. I fly myself around the mountains in Colorado and Wyoming...non-pilots along for the ride in a piston single? nope...not just nope, NOPE. If you have a mechanical problem and have to go into a mountain airport IMC it will be a little too much excitement...will the pax put up with a two day delay because of freezing fog? will they even understand afternoon/evening thunderstorms? This is a mission for an experienced pilot as lead and the novice as co-pilot in a very capable aircraft. This is not a mission for a piston single w/a flatlander pilot.
 
PA46 Meridian or TBM700 would fit your mission requirements!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top