Cessna Columbia 400 versus Mooney Bravo

[KSMooniac]

The Evo and Legacy had proper aerodynamic design by a real master of the art...much more so than the previous Lancair kit planes.  The IV and to a lesser extent the ES have some really poor behavior.

[MB65E]

Agreed! Too bad they are so expensive. Greg Cole is an amazing engineer!!

[harrispa]

Have been on many flights in a friends Columbia 400.  I found it to be about the most comfortable plane I have been in.   It has the waas G1000 avionics and A/C making for a very nice IFR platform, but it is not very fun to hand fly. With a capable pilot I have witness it handle very bad crosswind landings.  The engine is a TSIO550 and should have about the same maintenance issues as other 550 turbo engines.  There have been issues with the gear attach bolts.

 

Having said that my Mooney is much faster down low on less fuel and I don't have 400K invested like my friend.  I have replaced 2 cylinders, fuel pump overhaul, and had to have a complete tank reseal this year (all at under 700TT), so I cannot say my maintenance has been less than his.  I still love the Mooney!

[jetdriven]

Max cruise is 235 knots but you can only get that at 25,000' and run 85% power. I'm not sure how long an engine will last under those conditions.

[Seth]

That is cute - "pre loved".

I personally call my car and airplane "previously cherished"

[Seth]

Max cruise is 235 knots but you can only get that at 25,000' and run 85% power. I'm not sure how long an engine will last under those conditions.

There is a 400 owner, or maybe it was Columbia, at GAI who burned up his cylinders around 400 hours - Top was under warrenty, but he basically realized to fly at the book speeds, he'd keep burning up engines, so he simply goes a bit slower and loves his plane.

 

Some Mooney Acclaim's need Tops under 500 hours for the same reasons - just burning up the cylinders.  A lot of it is engine management.  No question, less drag needs less power for speed.  I'm still amazed how clean the Mooney Design is considering the lack of computer technology when it was on the drawing board.  If using proper airflow today to make more tweaks on the airplane, I bet a few fairings or mods could give a few more knots.

 

Similar missions - fast efficient flight four seater, but not full fuel and four big people.  The 400 right now is much more expensive obviously than what is available in the older Mooney fleet.  However, compare a "previously cherished" M20TN Acclaim and a few year old Cessna 400/Corvalis, and though I haven't looked it up, I'm curious the price delta.

 

What about a Columbia?  Where are they priced now compared to the Bravo?  I still think from what I'm hearing the maintenance may be more on the Columbia/Cessna due to life limited parts and the carbon fiber construction, but I'm sure in time with the Cirrus aircraft fleet over 10+ years now, that more and more shops are going to move toward being able to service carbon fiber. 

 

I still think the older Mooney will give you 80-90% of the performance on considerable less money up front.  Kind of like a MU-2 or older King Air vs a new one.  The older turbo props have a much lower acquisition price but higher hourly operating rates.   Financing can help with that if you are business, but as a personal owner?  All depends on your pockets, your mission, and your wants.

 

-Seth

[Parker_Woodruff]

The Cessna 400 is unquestionably a better design than a Cirrus. A used Bravo is almost unquestionably a better value than a used Cessna 400, though there are some dimensional advantages and possible useful load considerations depending on equipment.

That said, anyone that uses the weak argument of "landing gear maintenance" doesn't have any real experience with aircraft ownership unless all they know is Piper Comanche landing gear maintenance or some problematic Cessna designs.

If I have a traveling airplane, the gear needs to go up. Any other type of plane needs to have the third wheel on the tail and have a conversion to amphibs available.

All of the above expressed in my factually correct opinion.

[Parker_Woodruff]

Oh, and also in my factually correct opinion, I used to own what is now the most beautiful and most capable 252/Encore in existence, after Tim's recent FIKI and Interior upgrades.

[aviatoreb]

I repeat, it is silly to compare a $400k Cessna 400 to a $200k Mooney M20M even if the Bravo walks away with the fight.  It is only fair to bring the $400K used M20TN to the fight and watch the Cessna 400 cry for mercy.

[KSMooniac]

Except it might be relevant when the M20M flies past the cylinder shop with a grounded M20TN and Cessna 400 waiting inside.  

[philiplane]

The Cessna 400 is unquestionably a better design than a Cirrus. A used Bravo is almost unquestionably a better value than a used Cessna 400, though there are some dimensional advantages and possible useful load considerations depending on equipment.

That said, anyone that uses the weak argument of "landing gear maintenance" doesn't have any real experience with aircraft ownership unless all they know is Piper Comanche landing gear maintenance or some problematic Cessna designs.

If I have a traveling airplane, the gear needs to go up. Any other type of plane needs to have the third wheel on the tail and have a conversion to amphibs available.

All of the above expressed in my factually correct opinion.

 

 

The Cessna 400 is unquestionably a better design than a Cirrus. A used Bravo is almost unquestionably a better value than a used Cessna 400, though there are some dimensional advantages and possible useful load considerations depending on equipment.

That said, anyone that uses the weak argument of "landing gear maintenance" doesn't have any real experience with aircraft ownership unless all they know is Piper Comanche landing gear maintenance or some problematic Cessna designs.

If I have a traveling airplane, the gear needs to go up. Any other type of plane needs to have the third wheel on the tail and have a conversion to amphibs available.

All of the above expressed in my factually correct opinion.

 

If the Cirrus and the Cessna 400 (previously Columbia) planes have been in the market essentially the same length of time, why would the "better designed" plane be outsold by a 5-1 margin? 

 

From my perspective as a professional mechanic & flight instructor with experience on all the planes in this comparison, I can say the Cessna is what it is: a heavily revised home built design with many shortcomings. The Cirrus is a clean sheet design that is easy to service, durable, and modern. The Mooney is a wonderful evolution of a good design, with the Bravo being superior to the Acclaim as far as engine durability. 

[AndyFromCB]

Except it might be relevant when the M20M flies past the cylinder shop with a grounded M20TN and Cessna 400 waiting inside.  

 

So true, so true. Funny how one little mod made what maybe was the worst high altitude piston turbo engine into what I think is one of the best: oil cooled valve guides. Looking over my logbooks, at 3600 hours my Bravo has never had a cylinder issue. Just the damn camshaft...

[Seth]

If the Cirrus and the Cessna 400 (previously Columbia) planes have been in the market essentially the same length of time, why would the "better designed" plane be outsold by a 5-1 margin? 

 

From my perspective as a professional mechanic & flight instructor with experience on all the planes in this comparison, I can say the Cessna is what it is: a heavily revised home built design with many shortcomings. The Cirrus is a clean sheet design that is easy to service, durable, and modern. The Mooney is a wonderful evolution of a good design, with the Bravo being superior to the Acclaim as far as engine durability. 

 

Thread drift . . . 5-1 sales

 

Marketing is a big point.  Cirrus is not too revolutionary.  Yes carbon fiber - planes have had that for some time, yes side sticks, again, not groundbreaking.  it was taking the new approach to flying - we'll make this easy for you, it looks good, and the parachute will allow your spouse to say yes.  Their marketing campaign was better than any other during the last 10 years.  They sold to many pilots who would want what they sell vs pilots like us, who love the retract, and love our Mooney's.  Taildragger pilots won't fly a Cirrus - so they don't buy them.  Mooney Pilots tend not to get a Cirrus - we pinch pennies.  Bonanza pilots want 6 seats (except old Bo's who again, like their retracts, V Tails, and watch costs compared to a Cirrus). 

 

New money, new pilots, new doctors/lawyers/professionals who have the income and spouse that says yes to the parachute purchased the Cirrus.  If Mooney had put a parachute in, put the glass in earlier, and switched Marketing from fastest and strong, to fast, safe, strong, COOL & EASY (which easy may not be true), they would have had more sales.

 

I'm now going to go down a different path:

 

Most of us are male pilots (we do have some women on the board, so no disrespect to you).  The current stats show that female spouses in the baby boomers and Gen X control up to 80% of spending.  We're not getting it if she's not happy with it.  Though the vast majority of breadwinners are still male in those generations (though tightening) the financial spending decisions come back to the female.  Even if the male is making the decision, it's after approval by the female. 

 

So, you have a high income earning husband and wife, who are newer to aviation, and the marketing is specifically made for Baby Boomers and Gen X high wage earners, making sure that most likely, the female spouse is okay with the purchase - very comfy seats, the parachute, glass panel, side stick not in the way, cool looking, and new . . . Cirrus. 

 

The guys may want the Mooney, but hey, she picked and airplane and said yes . . .

 

And, if you are female and on this board, then you picked your Mooney which means you are even stronger than the rest!!

 

-Seth

[aviatoreb]

Yes - yes - parachute.  Love it or hate it this was a major marketing tool for Cirrus.  I have said in the past here that if Mooney were to offer a parachute in their new M20 offerings moving forward it would help sales dramatically - like it or not.

[DaV8or]

Lancair designed the EVO with the idea of getting the most performance out of an airplane a novice could handle.

 

I would hope so!! Their last four seat plane has killed a lot of people and continues to do so. They just now figured out who it was that was actually flying their planes?? A four passenger GA airplane should not require fighter pilot skills and proficiency. The IV-P is one airplane I will refuse a ride in. It really seems to be an honest to God death trap, but of a different nature.

[bsnpilot69]

It is not just marketing but the buying public perceived the Cirrus as having a better value or bang for the buck compared to the other planes. My brother bought a Cirrus 11 years ago because he thought the Cirrus with the PFD, MFD, wide cabin, parachute, speed,looks and expected "lower" maintenance due to having the gear fixed simply offered more bang for his buck. I remember the Ovation cost more or was about the same as the Cirrus so he went for the Cirrus, although he was really torn as he liked the Ovation a lot.

[aviatoreb]

It is not just marketing but the buying public perceived the Cirrus as having a better value or bang for the buck compared to the other planes. My brother bought a Cirrus 11 years ago because he thought the Cirrus with the PFD, MFD, wide cabin, parachute, speed,looks and expected "lower" maintenance due to having the gear fixed simply offered more bang for his buck. I remember the Ovation cost more or was about the same as the Cirrus so he went for the Cirrus, although he was really torn as he liked the Ovation a lot.

 

What is your brother's opinion now after 11 years of ownership?

[Marauder]

I would hope so!! Their last four seat plane has killed a lot of people and continues to do so. They just now figured out who it was that was actually flying their planes?? A four passenger GA airplane should not require fighter pilot skills and proficiency. The IV-P is one airplane I will refuse a ride in. It really seems to be an honest to God death trap, but of a different nature.

I had a chance to fly in a Lancair IV-P a few weeks ago owned by Brian's friend and CEO of Lancair Bob Wolstenholme. Bob let me fly it for a bit. Other than the blistering speed for a prop plane and getting accustomed to the side controls, it flew pretty conventionally. I was impressed that it didn't take much to get slowed for the landing.

I can see where people could get into trouble with it though. Flying down low and with power back, we were still inching up towards the max speed under 10k.

If I had my pick though I probably would take the Corsair -- little more firepower

[bonal]

So we're going nuts, well I would have to say if I could spend a week in any it would be the P47 Thunderbolt or perhaps the Douglas Sky Raider. Just plain mean!

[Hank]

I had a chance to fly in a Lancair IV-P a few weeks ago owned by Brian's friend and CEO of Lancair Bob Wolstenholme. Bob let me fly it for a bit. Other than the blistering speed for a prop plane and getting accustomed to the side controls, it flew pretty conventionally. I was impressed that it didn't take much to get slowed for the landing.

I can see where people could get into trouble with it though. Flying down low and with power back, we were still inching up towards the max speed under 10k.

If I had my pick though I probably would take the Corsair -- little more firepower

 

F4U all the way! But what happened to your beloved bomber???

[manoflamancha]

If money no object and we are talking warbirds, I'd love a nice P51 Mustang or L39 jet.

[bonal]

The 51 is an obvious choice but there is something intoxicating about that big round 18 jug Pratt and Whitney and one round in the 51's radiator and your done whereas that big radial could have a cylinder or two blown off and still keep running.

[Marauder]

F4U all the way! But what happened to your beloved bomber???

I felt the need for speed!

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Marauder]

The 51 is an obvious choice but there is something intoxicating about that big round 18 jug Pratt and Whitney and one round in the 51's radiator and your done whereas that big radial could have a cylinder or two blown off and still keep running.

 

Absolutely agree. The Mustang is sort of like being around a Porshe Cayman while the Corsair is like a mean old Chevy. Especially during startup:

 

 

But i do like the looks of the Stang:

 

[Joe Zuffoletto]

So, you have a high income earning husband and wife, who are newer to aviation, and the marketing is specifically made for Baby Boomers and Gen X high wage earners, making sure that most likely, the female spouse is okay with the purchase - very comfy seats, the parachute, glass panel, side stick not in the way, cool looking, and new . . . Cirrus.

 

When I first bought my Acclaim, my hangar mate had a Cirrus SR22 Turbo. My wife had never ridden in one, so we exchanged rides one day. Afterwards, over a cup of coffee (and without my hangar mate present), my wife said, "The Cirrus is the plane you buy for the spouse. The Mooney is the plane you buy for the pilot." I think she nailed it.