Columbia 350 High Performance Single Engine Plane 

An update on the Sling High Wing would truly be appreciated. 😢

This has always been my favorite plane/models. I test flew one of these back in 2006 and really preferred it over the SR-22. Built like a tank (utility category) and FAST. Great IFR platform.

I love that it’s fixed-gear. The extra maintenance costs and higher insurance premiums are just not worth the marginal speed increase you get from a retractable-gear.

Nice I like it.

Hi Mike. I like the cockpit of this plane.but is likes is have very small fuel tanks? I'm always with you .from Lesotho 🇱🇸

I’ve seen a few of the Columbia aircraft on ramps. Quite a few of them had several hairline cracks in the composite fuselage around the doors & windows.

I have owned two SR22's in the past. Currently own a Cessna 400 for the past 7 years. Totally prefer the Cessna 400 over the SR22. Its a perfect airplane for my wife chihuahua and myself. N43TT

Very nice. Can't to hear from tha brotha on his thoughts about it. #hny to y'all both. #salute my gud brothas!!!!!!

Hello Mike. I was trying to find your other RU-vid channel, where you talk about what you want to talk about. Thank You.

I would love to move up to something like this from any 4 cylinder airplane, but there is a huge dilemma to consider. These big IO550’s generate a lot of heat, and they seldom make it to TBO without replacing cylinders. The maintenance costs are high, the fuel burn is high, and the insurance costs are astronomical. Look at the cracking of the finish around that window. For my money, I’m sticking with metal airplanes….much easier to repair. I love the look, but the utility for the money is lacking. So here is the issue, the Columbia and Cirrus are about a thousand pounds heavier than a Piper Cherokee or Beech Sundowner. The marginal increase in performance comes at too great a cost in my opinion. I wish it were not true, but that is the reality. Insurance, maintenance and fuel cost will eat you alive in something like this. Don’t get me wrong….it’s beautiful and fast, and very capable, but I can’t justify the cost.

Not sure why you'd title this video "A True Cross Country Machine", and then tear it apart as NOT being one - whatever "true" means in the first place. And BTW carbon fibre IS in the composite material family. That particular aircraft (N1222G) has an interesting damage history. On 08Dec16 it experienced a wheel/brake fire in Singapore, causing severe damage to the tires, wheels, and landing gear, as well as the underside of the fuselage. The design had history of whee/brake fires, with at least seven aircraft experiencing the same. On 27Jun13 (prior to the wheel/brake fire in 2016) the aircraft jumped its chocks during a maintenance engine run and ran into a steel safety barrier, damaging both wings and prop. That repair took three years. Hopefully, the new owner in the U.S. got a good deal price-wise for this airplane, and will be able to enjoy many uneventful hours in it.

Hi Mike, talking about performance and payload, I think the Cessna 210 is better places as far as remember, with an average of 160/170 kt IAS and around 12 to 14 USG per hour at 8000 feet, allowing up to 6 pax on board .... Nevertheless I find thé design of the cockpit is terrific and much less massive then the 210... Just m'y 2 cts... 😊

This is exactly the airplane I want! Definitely might go to aircraft. Glad you featured it.

Brother Man love the plane 🛬🛩️ love the video 📷 you've been a lil behind in the videos like this 😔 thanks for posting! Have a great start to your year 🛬🥂🇺🇸

I just love your positive attitude and love of great engineering.

Mike are you still flying? Did you sell your plane?

It's called a cuffed or split leading edge. One of the most important facts that you left out is that the Columbia/Cessna 350 is certified spin resistant. Something rare in aviation. Also, that's not a Perspective G1000. The perspective is a Cirrus trademark only. It's just a straight Garmin G1000 with a keyboard controller. Those aren't stickers brother, they're placards Yes, it can hold four people. You don't have to fill the tanks every time you fly dude. Most folks have bladder limitations of about 3 hours. So yes, it can carry four people and still fly a solid 3.5 hours. I enjoy your videos man, but you consistently make mistakes when doing these reviews. This one isn't terrible but others have been pretty bad. I would just take a little more time to study up before you shoot the vid. Maybe use a checklist for key items.

Any idea why modern planes still use AV gas?

The 400 was significantly faster no? Still kinda crazy Cessna canceled the 400Ttx but kept the 182T.

Thx Mike.

maybe not 3 american passengers XD

180 knots & 16 gallons per hour better than 100 knots & 10 GPH

Don't always look at max fuel, 87 gallon is a bathtub of fuel. At 16gph that's 5½ hours. Typical flight might be 1½ hours and suddenly you can leave the bathtub at home and put people in instead. Max fuel should not be seen as mandatory, it's an option for trading people for more fuel. A strength, not a weakness. A local guy who has a piper m600 is always hating on Phenom 100 because at full fuel it only has capacity for around 3 passengers. That doesn't mean it's max 3 people. Full fuel is not mandatory. Columbia 350 is a reasonably capable plane but it weighs over a ton empty and it's not pressurized. It should easily be possible to cut the weight in half while pressurized and that makes everything cheaper and faster. It's 2-3 cast iron pianos you remove which means the wing can be smaller and less drag and a smaller engine will do. And like I've said before, the real win would be two small turbofan engines, nicer look, more quiet, faster, engine redundancy and jet engines can be very light and no prop clearance means gear can be short and ingress easy. And prop strikes are rare. Lancair had room to improve. And the ballistic chute might be key to why Cirrus sell more than anyone else. Not dying is a strong selling point. Marketing 101.

Thanks for covering the plane but I think you missed the mark - nobody flys with full fuel and “one passenger” because the endurance is too long - like 7 or more hours in economy! Nobody wants to sit there for that long! This is a great plane (I’ve owned for seven years) and find your analysis a little bit off. 
I load up with 70 gal and can fly from Central CA to Montana with 2 or 3 people, check it out here ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-r57RPMlwhCQ.htmlsi=QmhBMXl7xkAqA7AD. 
If you really want experience this airplane (actual flying), hit me up next time you’re in the Bay Area.

Your useful load comments are not reasonable. How often would someone fly this 6 hours. I fly two hours or less all the time in my TTX and 4 adults. Not a useful load issue. The 6 hour flight is usually reserved for a couple or single business traveler.

First