CirrusSR-22 versus Columbia[Cessna] 400

Ive Flown Both,

Cirrus SR22 Turbo,
Cabin was well refined, avionics were located perfect for easy data entry, doors sucked, trim sucked, hand flying was "touchy" but very manageable. autopilot flew the plane wonderfully

Columbia 400
Cabin was nice but not as good as cirrus, avionics were all over the place but I liked the fact that you had standby engine indications, doors were very solid, hand flying it was solid as a rock but a littly touchy on pitch, autopilot was nice (especially the master on/off switch)

Both had the avidyne setup (PFD MFD,+ 2 GNS430w's) and cirrus definitely gets the better cockpit layout (except for standby instruments which are located below field of view

If I am buying one today I would get the Columbia due to the solid build quality and placement of certain stuff in the cockpit.

But, they were both wonderful planes!
 
olasek said:
Some reviewer of both these airplanes mentioned that in his opinion the side-stick in Columbia 400 has a "more satisfying feel" and that in fact it is a true side-stick versus Cirrus which simply has a yoke-like device mounted on the side. I thought it was an interesting observation.
Click to expand...
I've probably flown with more different types and location of control device than just about anyone else here. It really doesn't matter -- you get used to it in 2-5 hours, and after that, you don't even think aobut it. What you don't get used to is bad control force gradients or poor harmonization, and those can be found with any sort of control device. I haven't flown the Cessna 350/400, but I have flown the SR20/22/22T, and the force gradients and harmonization are just fine.
 
Ron Levy said:
I agree.
only if you land it too fast. I can make consistent mains-first landings even in an SR22T with air conditioning.
QUOTE]

What speeds do you use for landings on the sr22t? I was instructed to cross the numbers at 90 kts and then start the roundout with approx 85 kts and hold it until touchdown. Maybe thats what is causing my flat landing attitudes. However, procedure works for nice landings.
Click to expand...
 
Not a cirrus driver but that sounds awfully fast! I would think you might cross the numbers at 75kts or less. The full flap stall speed is probably mid to low 50's right? I'm guessing clean stall is right around 60
 
cirrusmx said:
Ron Levy said:
only if you land it too fast. I can make consistent mains-first landings even in an SR22T with air conditioning.
Click to expand...
What speeds do you use for landings on the sr22t? I was instructed to cross the numbers at 90 kts and then start the roundout with approx 85 kts and hold it until touchdown. Maybe thats what is causing my flat landing attitudes. However, procedure works for nice landings.
Click to expand...
About 82-83 KIAS on final with two aboard and a lot of fuel, a couple of knots more if loaded up. And yes, that extra speed is what's causing your flat attitude landings.
 
Meliss said:
I think the 400 is faster? What are the pro's and con's of each against each other? I've heard pilots of both talk about how theirs is better. I'm just not fully aware of all the differences between the two, I always thought they were quite similar. Thoughts?
Click to expand...

My take Cessna faster, cirrus has the chute. I'd take the chute myself, but I would buy neither. I would never buy a plane for that design mission on fixed gear, just won't happen on principle. Maybe on floats, but not handy.
 
A DPE friend's hangar is adjacent to the favored (based on rubber marks on the runway) touchdown area at a popular resort airport. Without looking, the Cirri arrivals are easy to detect due to the louder-than-normal chirp when the mains touch down. As you look up to see what caused all the commotion, their touchdown speed (flat) of +/- 15 knots too fast would be a reasonable estimate. On the older airplanes, the window between prop strikes and tail strikes was narrower than for most other airplanes, and pilots were somewhat justiably nervous. The newest version sits higher and provides more margin.
 
dell30rb said:
Not a cirrus driver but that sounds awfully fast! I would think you might cross the numbers at 75kts or less. The full flap stall speed is probably mid to low 50's right? I'm guessing clean stall is right around 60
Click to expand...
They designed this one to be fast. Max gross Vs0 is 60 and Vs1 is 70 (KCAS). That makes 1.3 Vs0 78 Knots (IAS and CAS are the same at that speed with full flaps). However, you can't fly the turbocharged model that slow on final or you run out of elevator in the flare. I've found that an extra 5-7 knots over 1.3 Vs0 is sufficient to solve that problem, but you don't want more than that or you run into those other issues.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Your guess is wrong. Max gross Vs0 is 60 and Vs1 is 70 (KCAS). That makes 1.3 Vs0 78 Knots (IAS and CAS are the same at that speed with full flaps). However, you can't fly the turbocharged model that slow on final or you run out of elevator in the flare. I've found that an extra 5-7 knots over 1.3 Vs0 is sufficient to solve that problem, but you don't want more than that or you run into those other issues.
Click to expand...

If I had that situation in a plane I would recommend ballast rather than increasing landing speed energy.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
I would never buy a plane for that design mission on fixed gear, just won't happen on principle.
Click to expand...

Dumb principle. The drag created by the gear of these airplanes is negligible. I doubt you'd gain much speed by making them retractable.
 
Henning said:
If I had that situation in a plane I would recommend ballast rather than increasing landing energy.
Click to expand...
Payload is insufficient to allow routine carriage of ballast unless you never put anyone or anything else in the back.
 
Last edited:
steingar said:
Dumb principle. The drag created by the gear of these airplanes is negligible. I doubt you'd gain much speed by making them retractable.
Click to expand...

Really, consider a L/D diagram, which increases at high speed, induced drag or form drag? Which creates which? At least 15kts or 3gph.
 
dell30rb said:
Not a cirrus driver but that sounds awfully fast! I would think you might cross the numbers at 75kts or less. The full flap stall speed is probably mid to low 50's right? I'm guessing clean stall is right around 60
Click to expand...

Found out it likes to start sinking fast at the speed last weekend.
 
Traket92X said:
Found out it likes to start sinking fast at the speed last weekend.
Click to expand...
Pull/trim up and add power to maintain speed and lessen descent. Next time tighten up you pattern to accept your plane's approach angle with less power.
 
Evidently their target market for the several thousand planes they have sold doesn't agree with you. Rave on.

Henning said:
Really, consider a L/D diagram, which increases at high speed, induced drag or form drag? Which creates which? At least 15kts or 3gph.
Click to expand...
 
Henning said:
My take Cessna faster, cirrus has the chute. I'd take the chute myself, but I would buy neither. I would never buy a plane for that design mission on fixed gear, just won't happen on principle. Maybe on floats, but not handy.
Click to expand...
The Cessna is faster. When it was the Columbia it went head-head with the Mooney Acclaim for the title of the fastest piston single. Lost by ~2kts IIRC. So the Cessna is the 2nd fastest piston single. And that's with fixed gear vs Mooney retracts kiddies.
 
wabower said:
Evidently their target market for the several thousand planes they have sold doesn't agree with you. Rave on.
Click to expand...

They weren't given a choice. Look at the Pipistrell, they went retract, look at their numbers. It was all about saving money and increasing profitability, not building the best aircraft. Saying "it doesn't make a difference" without offering up the evidence is just a marketing department cop out.
 
Yeah, now you're smarter than their marketing department too. How many units would they have sold if the plane had been a retrac?

Henning said:
They weren't given a choice. Look at the Pipistrell, they went retract, look at their numbers. It was all about saving money and increasing profitability, not building the best aircraft. Saying "it doesn't make a difference" without offering up the evidence is just a marketing department cop out.
Click to expand...
 
Jaybird180 said:
The Cessna is faster. When it was the Columbia it went head-head with the Mooney Acclaim for the title of the fastest piston single. Lost by ~2kts IIRC. So the Cessna is the 2nd fastest piston single. And that's with fixed gear vs Mooney retracts kiddies.
Click to expand...

Yep, if they would have cleaned up the Columbia's gear it would have beat the Mooney by a handy margin. Seen the difference in speeds between the fixed and retract versions of the Lancairs? Considerable.
 
Henning said:
Really, consider a L/D diagram, which increases at high speed, induced drag or form drag? Which creates which? At least 15kts or 3gph.
Click to expand...

Compare the retractable versus the fixed gear, you're usually looking at 10 knots, and that's comparing retractable to draggy gear. The gear on Cirrus and Corvalis is anything but draggy.
 
Henning said:
Pull/trim up and add power to maintain speed and lessen descent. Next time tighten up you pattern to accept your plane's approach angle with less power.
Click to expand...
Don't try this at home in your SR22T -- you'll run out of elevator authority and then really bad things will happen. 75 Knots is just too slow for an approach to landing in this airplane no matter what you do with power or trim.
 
wabower said:
Is that a positive or a negative?
Click to expand...

Well I raised that point because one can't just compare speeds and say "look the cessna is doing +/- mooney speeds despite having fixed gear". It does, but it needs 10% extra HP to achieve that.
 
I haven't seen the test and don't have a dog in the fight. If you assume 65% power and .5hp SFC, is the ~10% difference equivalent to ~1 gal hr?

Shorrick Mk2 said:
Well I raised that point because one can't just compare speeds and say "look the cessna is doing +/- mooney speeds despite having fixed gear". It does, but it needs 10% extra HP to achieve that.
Click to expand...
 
I've never flown an aircraft with wheel pants but from what I understand up here in the north you almost always need to take them off during the winter due to snow and ice getting crammed into the pants (very unpleasant sounding!). So you end up losing a lot of that nice drag reduction for a substantial part of the winter. Any wheel panted owners care to comment?
 
steingar said:
Compare the retractable versus the fixed gear, you're usually looking at 10 knots, and that's comparing retractable to draggy gear. The gear on Cirrus and Corvalis is anything but draggy.
Click to expand...

Usually it's 15 kts and usually the speeds are slower and plane heavier, so that means the gear would have an even greater effect with these planes.
 
Ron Levy said:
Don't try this at home in your SR22T -- you'll run out of elevator authority and then really bad things will happen. 75 Knots is just too slow for an approach to landing in this airplane no matter what you do with power or trim.
Click to expand...

If you run out of elevator authority you should be carrying some ballast, not unusual in HP planes operated at light cabin weights.
 
wabower said:
I haven't seen the test and don't have a dog in the fight. If you assume 65% power and .5hp SFC, is the ~10% difference equivalent to ~1 gal hr?
Click to expand...

Neither have I (dog in the fight i mean - i'd love to have that "problem") but according to tests I've read, done at 11'000ft, the 400 will cruise at 200kts on 24.7gph 50F ROP (max cruise power) while the Mooney will do about 205 (let's round it down to 200) on 21.9 gph.
 
Henning said:
If you run out of elevator authority you should be carrying some ballast, not unusual in HP planes operated at light cabin weights.
Click to expand...
Again, ballast is not always an option in the SR22T due to payload limits.

It's clear that you aren't all that familiar with these planes. I'd suggest getting more training on them before offering more inappropriate suggestions on how to land them.
 
spinfire said:
I've never flown an aircraft with wheel pants but from what I understand up here in the north you almost always need to take them off during the winter due to snow and ice getting crammed into the pants (very unpleasant sounding!). So you end up losing a lot of that nice drag reduction for a substantial part of the winter. Any wheel panted owners care to comment?
Click to expand...

I land on plowed runways in the winter and keep my wheel pants on. I like them, they look good, and they make the airplane go faster.

The down side is I am partially allergic to turf fields and land them only rarely.
 
around 85 kts should be an alright short final approach speed on the sr22t. 75 kts is too slow and if you get any sort of wind shear/gust you will get dangerously slow and the ground might just catch up to you. Cirrus lacks wing area unlike the single engine cessnas and thus demand a higher approach speed.
 
Ron Levy said:
Again, ballast is not always an option in the SR22T due to payload limits.

It's clear that you aren't all that familiar with these planes. I'd suggest getting more training on them before offering more inappropriate suggestions on how to land them.
Click to expand...
You can always manage a way to attach permanent ballast in the tail, either that or the AoI of the H Stab needs to be tuned so you don't run out of authority under design limit criteria. Here's my question, if you are flying an aircraft that cannot be flown to design limit criteria, are you flying an unairworthy aircraft? Accepting problems because you can't figure out a solution, mehhh.
 
If you want to go fast get a T210, and spend all the money you just saved on gas and hydraulic fluid.
 
I only have a few flights in a 210 but I remember the SR22 being about as fast in cruise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top