I have a new 20 with 96 hrs. since May. Most of my flying is on business and I regularly fly from upstate NY to Madison, WI, Chicago and Milwaukee as a few examples. I came back from Madison yesterday at 13,000 feet and ran a comparison of fuel burn and speed to see if I really want to go up to a 22. This is what I found using book figures at 12,000 (my 20 regularly makes book), fuel burn in the 20 at max power and RPM 51.47 gal/4.81 hrs. The 22 would burn 70.12 gal and take 4.19 hours. Total time 22 beats the 20 by 37 minutes at an additional cost of 55.51 (using 3) or $1.50 per minute of flight. Now figure in the 45-62 thousand dollars difference in price, the lower TBO and the increase in insurance, etc. In my opinion unless you need the 4 seats full or live in a high altitude area the 20 presents a very attractive package. If you are independantly wealthy and don’t need to fill the seats or live in a high altitude airport, then go for it as money is no object. Bye the way I actually flew back non-stop from Madison, WI to my home base at Glens Falls, NY non-stop at 13,000ft. running 2500RPM, 50 degrees lean of peak and still have 1:35 minutes of fuel left in the tanks. Total time was 4hrs 38 min. for a 760NM trip. Of course I had about a 10-14 knot tail wind component. My fuel burn at 50 degrees LOP was 6.9GPH. Hope this helps those of you struggling with the choice.
David Bulman
My partnership looked into whether our second plane was to be a 20 or a 22. Our thoughts were:
SR22 is Better
–Sandel EHSI
–Two Batteries
–Rudder Trim
–90lb better useful load
–Faster, better climb
SR22 is worse
–higher fuel burn
–more expensive
–1700 hr TBO
–Longer T/O, landing distances
–higher stall speed
–somewhat less range
Based on this calculus, we decided to stick with the SR20. The deciding factor for me was the T/O and landing distances, and the stall speeds, since I routinely fly into very small fields.
I would have liked the better useful load, but based on how the SR20 useful load changed dramatically over the years, we were not willing to bet the farm on the SR22’s useful load staying at what Cirrus was predicting. (we did this calculus before the 22 was in full production).
Also, I believe that our point about the range is probably incorrect, but that would not have changed our decision.
–Brand
I think the TBO is now 2000 hr.
My partnership looked into whether our second plane was to be a 20 or a 22. Our thoughts were:
SR22 is Better
–Sandel EHSI
–Two Batteries
–Rudder Trim
–90lb better useful load
–Faster, better climb
SR22 is worse
–higher fuel burn
–more expensive
–1700 hr TBO
–Longer T/O, landing distances
–higher stall speed
–somewhat less range
Based on this calculus, we decided to stick with the SR20. The deciding factor for me was the T/O and landing distances, and the stall speeds, since I routinely fly into very small fields.
I would have liked the better useful load, but based on how the SR20 useful load changed dramatically over the years, we were not willing to bet the farm on the SR22’s useful load staying at what Cirrus was predicting. (we did this calculus before the 22 was in full production).
Also, I believe that our point about the range is probably incorrect, but that would not have changed our decision.
–Brand
Not sure on the TO/Landing figures. The only time the figures are significantly worse for the SR22 is for landing over 50ft.
Having said that I know of someone who has landed on a 600m grass strip over powerlines!
I suppose you pay the money you make your choice! 
Simon
Just returned from having my ARNAV engine monitoring installed. (I will have more on that when I get a few answers…)
On that flight, at 9,000’ at less than 65% power and leaned 50-75 LOP, the SR22 was giving me a real 160 KTAS (yes true) at 11.5 GPH, which if my memory is correct is about the figures for a good runing SR20’s high cruise.
Using these figures and about 5 gallons for T/O & climb, yields a range of about 1,000 NM’s with IFR reserves. I don’t think I would choose to fly that profile, but it is there for comparison. purposes
Just returned from having my ARNAV engine monitoring installed. (I will have more on that when I get a few answers…)
On that flight, at 9,000’ at less than 65% power and leaned 50-75 LOP, the SR22 was giving me a real 160 KTAS (yes true) at 11.5 GPH, which if my memory is correct is about the figures for a good runing SR20’s high cruise.
Using these figures and about 5 gallons for T/O & climb, yields a range of about 1,000 NM’s with IFR reserves. I don’t think I would choose to fly that profile, but it is there for comparison. purposes
Marty, I burn about 12.5 GPH at 50 LOP and am getting 181 True. I think the setup on the fuel ajustment are slightly different, plane to plane is my guess. They just put a new fuel pump in mine and reajusted everything. One of the fellows at the Nantucket fly-in is getting 189 true.
Denis