Yesterday I read another post that referred to the SR20 as being under powered, as though it were a fact of life like the sun rising in the East. At the risk of being accused as blindly speaking well of the aircraft, I don’t get it.
Underpowered relative to what? The 22? Well of course. But you’d think people expected 250 HP and only got 200!
I live in the flat, hot midwest, and I’ve never had a mission I had to cancel due to the plane’s power. I’ve flown to Mt. Rushmore and Denver, both at or near full gross, and never with a problem.
The plane was not advertised as being able to climb fast at 12,000’ or climb at all at high altitudes in extreme heat. It’s not good at routine flying over the Rockies, which is a mission that’s not relevant to most pilots. An Archer would struggle more, as would a 172 SP, both of which cost about the same as an SR20.
Yes, the overheating is a real issue, and it indirectly impacts performance. So let’s concede that there’s a CHT/OT problem. Yes, it goes about 5 knots under book, as does virtually every other plane - wish it didn’t.
If rapid climbing at high altitudes is important to your mission, then the SR22 is the appropriate plane (and a great plane it is). Personally, given the profile of my typical flying, I don’t want, need, nor can I afford the extra power.
I read the specs when I purchased the plane, and my recollection is that the sales materials did mention that the plane had a 200HP engine. So, relative to the expectations I was lead to, it’s powered properly.
The guy in the hangar next to me has a Cherokee 180; the next guy has a 172. They look at my SR20 like I look at the SR22 - a high-power, high-performance, high-speed airplane. Hardly a meeting goes by without them mentioning how lucky I am to be flying this plane. If they heard all the complaining about the lack of power, they’d probably think we were a bunch of can’t make 'em happy ingrates.