SR20 vs. SR22

Guest Discussion
1

Comrades, I need your advice. I am torm between choosing an SR20 “C” with Stormscope, BF Goodrich Skywatch, ARNAV Engine Monitor and Sandell HSI - vs - an SR22 “A” with its basic package w/ no BF Goodrich Skywatch. At this point, I dont think I can afford the SR 22"B" .

I’m 200 lbs and intend to go flying with full seats. In addition, I intend to go to “high” places like Lake Tahoe (6500 MSL).

I’m concerned about the SR22 fuel burn and its endurance but I am trilled at its ability to haul 4 people. Yet, it’s a lot more expensive.

Well hope to hear from you soon,

Mario SR20 #411

2

Comrades, I need your advice. I am torm between choosing an SR20 “C” with Stormscope, BF Goodrich Skywatch, ARNAV Engine Monitor and Sandell HSI - vs - an SR22 “A” with its basic package w/ no BF Goodrich Skywatch. At this point, I dont think I can afford the SR 22"B" .

I’m 200 lbs and intend to go flying with full seats. In addition, I intend to go to “high” places like Lake Tahoe (6500 MSL).

I’m concerned about the SR22 fuel burn and its endurance but I am trilled at its ability to haul 4 people. Yet, it’s a lot more expensive.

Well hope to hear from you soon,

Mario SR20 #411

MARIIO

My name is Rich Meyer

I own 149CD SR20

Forget all the Stormscopes; Just get a Garmin 430 or 530 even better;

get the SR22 Yeah Baby

180 knots ;; I fly a lot with my wife and two

little girts total weight 400 odd pounds between the four of us;; and I still can"t stop thinking about getting the SR22

Go for it with a basic panel; Christ Flight following with a Dual GPS ;; That’s all ya need;

I’ve flown my sr20 out of Tahoe on a hot day south shore;; That rising terrain can be scary;

Rich Meyer

Cloud Lover

3

Comrades, I need your advice. I am torm between choosing an SR20 “C” with Stormscope, BF Goodrich Skywatch, ARNAV Engine Monitor and Sandell HSI - vs - an SR22 “A” with its basic package w/ no BF Goodrich Skywatch. At this point, I dont think I can afford the SR 22"B" .

I’m 200 lbs and intend to go flying with full seats. In addition, I intend to go to “high” places like Lake Tahoe (6500 MSL).

I’m concerned about the SR22 fuel burn and its endurance but I am trilled at its ability to haul 4 people. Yet, it’s a lot more expensive.

Well hope to hear from you soon,

Mario SR20 #411

Mario: We can give you advice, but the decision is yours.

I own the '22 and have never been sorry. The step up in price was a significant factor as was all the other increased expenses, but I have regretted the decsion. (Just to probve that i am not wacked, read the recent Aviation Consumer article. Loosly quioting them they say, " Even if you need a partner to afford it, we’d recommend you buy the SR22."

Reasons:

  1. Performance: The SR22 performance is stellar. It climbs like a bat out of He**, gets you to altitude much quicker (read quicker to cruise speeds). If you’re worried about high density altitudes, the SR22 will be much better.

  2. Realistic Payload: Even with the GW increase, the SR22 will haul more and you will have much greater flexibility to trade fuel for UL. (Does anyone really do that?)

  3. Engine cooling: While the new SR22a cowl may change this, the SR22 has no cooling problems even in climbs in hot weather.

  4. Fuel burn isn’t as bad as it looks and if you judiciously throttle back to 160 - 170, you will be burning between 12-15 GPH.

  5. The engine seems easier to start.

  6. The Sandel HSI may be overkill, but the S-Tec 55X is great. Whatever choice you make, I’d strongly recommend this A/P.

Downside: SR22 has longer wings making it a tight fit (or impossible)in many hangars.

Marty

4

Mario,

If you’re 200# AND you want to fill the seats with adult people, forget about the fueled-for-3.5 hours SR-20 from airports at ANY altitude, much less places like Tahoe.

I was close to getting a “B” model SR-20, and requested they tell me the realistic empty weight of the delivered aircraft. Response from Cirrus was “2,207#” which, with a gross (at the time) of 2,950# left me with all of 743# useful load BEFORE fuel. And you’re looking at a “C” model which, I suspect, will be heavier.

Pete

Comrades, I need your advice. I am torm between choosing an SR20 “C” with Stormscope, BF Goodrich Skywatch, ARNAV Engine Monitor and Sandell HSI - vs - an SR22 “A” with its basic package w/ no BF Goodrich Skywatch. At this point, I dont think I can afford the SR 22"B" .

I’m 200 lbs and intend to go flying with full seats. In addition, I intend to go to “high” places like Lake Tahoe (6500 MSL).

I’m concerned about the SR22 fuel burn and its endurance but I am trilled at its ability to haul 4 people. Yet, it’s a lot more expensive.

Well hope to hear from you soon,

Mario SR20 #411

5

Comrades, I need your advice. I am torm between choosing an SR20 “C” with Stormscope, BF Goodrich Skywatch, ARNAV Engine Monitor and Sandell HSI - vs - an SR22 “A” with its basic package w/ no BF Goodrich Skywatch. At this point, I dont think I can afford the SR 22"B" .

I’m 200 lbs and intend to go flying with full seats. In addition, I intend to go to “high” places like Lake Tahoe (6500 MSL).

I’m concerned about the SR22 fuel burn and its endurance but I am trilled at its ability to haul 4 people. Yet, it’s a lot more expensive.

Well hope to hear from you soon,

Mario SR20 #411

Mario: We can give you advice, but the decision is yours.

I own the '22 and have never been sorry. The step up in price was a significant factor as was all the other increased expenses, but I have regretted the decsion. (Just to probve that i am not wacked, read the recent Aviation Consumer article. Loosly quioting them they say, " Even if you need a partner to afford it, we’d recommend you buy the SR22."

Reasons:

  1. Performance: The SR22 performance is stellar. It climbs like a bat out of He**, gets you to altitude much quicker (read quicker to cruise speeds). If you’re worried about high density altitudes, the SR22 will be much better.
  1. Realistic Payload: Even with the GW increase, the SR22 will haul more and you will have much greater flexibility to trade fuel for UL. (Does anyone really do that?)
  1. Engine cooling: While the new SR22a cowl may change this, the SR22 has no cooling problems even in climbs in hot weather.
  1. Fuel burn isn’t as bad as it looks and if you judiciously throttle back to 160 - 170, you will be burning between 12-15 GPH.
  1. The engine seems easier to start.
  1. The Sandel HSI may be overkill, but the S-Tec 55X is great. Whatever choice you make, I’d strongly recommend this A/P.

Downside: SR22 has longer wings making it a tight fit (or impossible)in many hangars.

Marty

Thanks a lot guys, Right now I;/ leaning towards the SR22.

Mario.

PS. How many miles can the SR22 cover in 3.5 hours. Many Thanks…

6

PS. How many miles can the SR22 cover in 3.5 hours. Many Thanks…

On a recent trip from LOU (Louisville, KY) to DAB Daytona Beach, FL) I flew it GPS direct with a few ATC vectors, and an ILS at the end. TAS’s were round 165- 170 and ground speeds were about 5 kts. higher (Yes, I did have one of those phenominally rare tailwinds.) I used 52 gallons in almost exactly 3.5 hours.

Cruise power settings were lowish - in the 65% power range. My Q&D flight planning program show the route to be 589 NM’s. Theoreticaly since the SR22 holds 81 G usable and using these figures, you could fly well over 700 NM’s.

I use 1 hr reserves (minimum) @ 17 GPH, then figure about 160 KTAS @ 16 GPH (all have proven to be conservative) for flight planning purposes. This yields a range of better than 650, including a climb allowance an none for descent. 700 NM is probably reasonble as well if you figure a bit more accurately.

Of course, my major limitation is my WIFE’s range of no more than 3.5 hours.

YMMV

Marty

7

My SR20 with C configuration, leather, and 3-blade prop was 2103 pounds.

Looking at the 20, versus 22, my take is that the 22 is faster, and does have a higher useful load. Terrific plane, in my view. On the other hand, the 20 burns significantly less fuel. Also, the useful load comparison needs to take into account that the 20 is better able to travel with less than full tanks because of its better fuel economy. Said differently, if you look at a given trip on the 22 versus 20, plan a consistent reserve, and look at how much weight each plane can carry, the 22 typically does better but not nearly by the amount of the useful load/full tanks difference.

Mario,

If you’re 200# AND you want to fill the seats with adult people, forget about the fueled-for-3.5 hours SR-20 from airports at ANY altitude, much less places like Tahoe.

I was close to getting a “B” model SR-20, and requested they tell me the realistic empty weight of the delivered aircraft. Response from Cirrus was “2,207#” which, with a gross (at the time) of 2,950# left me with all of 743# useful load BEFORE fuel. And you’re looking at a “C” model which, I suspect, will be heavier.

Pete

Comrades, I need your advice. I am torm between choosing an SR20 “C” with Stormscope, BF Goodrich Skywatch, ARNAV Engine Monitor and Sandell HSI - vs - an SR22 “A” with its basic package w/ no BF Goodrich Skywatch. At this point, I dont think I can afford the SR 22"B" .

I’m 200 lbs and intend to go flying with full seats. In addition, I intend to go to “high” places like Lake Tahoe (6500 MSL).

I’m concerned about the SR22 fuel burn and its endurance but I am trilled at its ability to haul 4 people. Yet, it’s a lot more expensive.

Well hope to hear from you soon,

Mario SR20 #411