Cirrus vs Cessna 400

If you read back through some of my posts you'll be able to read through my trails owning several Cirrus Aircraft. to sum it up for you...stay away from them.

Build quality is poor and support is worse. I am not an "anomaly", I just interviewed with a company that has a new (year old) SR22 turbo that Cirrus and all of it repair facilities have (as yet) been unable to repair. Oh and it was delivered to the customer with the defects and promises of immediate repair!

I have demo'd the Cessna on several occasions and feel it really is a pilots plane. Add to that the security in having Cessna behind the product and it should be an easy decision.

I should have bought a Cessna.

 

Reading through your post if you are not interested in flying above say 12K the 350 is a great alternative to the 400. Not sure about used pricing, but they do make fewer of them.

 

The Piper Archer II is a good plane to think about as well. I used to work for a Piper dealer as a CFI before getting into the 135 world, granted it was a decade ago. It's slower by 30 KTAS, but has an honest 400 pound useful load with a full bag of fuel. They come with the Garmin 1000, 430/530 stacks and a bullet proof Continental O-360 200hp engine. It's a tried and true airfame.
I never flew a Cirrus, but I hear good things about them.

 

I assume you mean archer III? if it's g1000 then there's no need for a 530/430 combo, g1000 has built in radios. An archer II has higher full fuel payload, my '69 cherokee 180D has 717lb full fuel payload.

In any case, sounds like he wants something with higher performance. Out of the 2 I'd pick the 400, for sure, but I would give the bonanaza G36 a HARD look, especially a TAT (tornado alley turbo-normalized) variant, they do just north of 200 up in the flight levels.

Payload on the 400 isn't that good, they have about 1000lb u/l and 100 gal tanks, that leaves you with 400lb full fuel payload. That's 2 people up front and a toothbrush in their pockets

 

I'm not sure about the price point, but Bonanza's are pricey toys for the performance. They certainly set the standard though. The Saratoga is another variant, but you are at the half mil mark. They also drink 16 gallons per hour in the normally aspirated HP model and 18 to 20 GPH on the turbo, depending on how lean you want to pull it back. To me, fuel is cheap insurance, so I'd keep it a little rich. Being a lowly CFI, I couldn't afford to fix it if I broke it either Those Lycoming TSIO 540's like to make metal, I like Continentals for reliability. Graphic Engine monitors are a great $3k investment as well.

Never used a G1000. The primo glass of the day was King 85 EFIS with a 530 or 430. Avidyne MFD's were being integrated into the King IHAS 550/850 etc. It was the pre platforms to the G1000. I didn't know that became fully integrated. How are those new avionics on reliability. I remember losing a 430 because the enter button failed. I turned on the airplane and was stuck on the home screen. No Nav/Com or GPS. Just the nose of a plane looking at me on a home screen. Fortunately I had a second one to use.

We later becam a Socata Dealer and got into the Trinidad's and Tobago's. They were slower and had a vibration that wouldn't go away. Their suggestion was to trade it in on a TBM 700 ha ha. Sorry I guess it's an 850 now. A trade in we got for a while was a Mooney Ovation with a Shadin fuel computer that would calculate GPH. It was getting 13.8 MPG while whipping out 194 KTAS as advertised. that's hugging Ferrari fuel consumptions. At 65% power you would edge up to the yellow arc in cruise at 6000' to 8000' MSL. that little plane was a blast, but tricky to land with those big bushings on the landing gear. Plan out the flare, especially on the shorter runways. California being my homeground, the 2600' runways you had to think about: San Carlos, Palo Alto, Santa Ynes, Santa Paula, etc. They kept you honest

Just curious, going back to your mission, what type of terrain are you flying over typically? Do you need turbos for altitude or are you flying over flat lands? 500 miles is a long time to spend in an airplane doing 130 to 160 KTAS, 4 to 5 hours. How often do you plan on doing that with 3 pax? If that's a frequent event, you may want something a little bigger and with all weather capabilities. That's a large swath of land to cover in a recip.

 

Keep load in mind, as you are shopping. The turbo Cirrus I fly is very limited when the tanks are full...take a look at CG as well.

I've flown about everything listed here and would heed the advice on the Beechcraft...they are built better than probably anything in the sky (apples to apples); however they are expensive when compared to the 350/400 or Cirrus.

The Mooney option was covered well by Rob in previous threads plus they just did this: http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2010/101018mooney.html

Tough to argue the Cessna, just make sure load, cg and mission are compatible.

Keep us posted on what you decide.

 

If most, or all, of your trips will be east of Interstate 25, the 350 will do you fine. If most, or all, of your trips will be west of Interstate 25, go with the 400. I always feel better flying over big hills with room to spare.

Cirrus? High, expensive maintenance. Might as well get an A36 and be able to use the airplane and be comfortable and have the reliability as compared with the Cirrus. For long xc, A36 is hard to beat for comfort. So is a T210, but you said you were looking at a newer bird. . .