Dennis,
The question isn’t which is the better plane, or which gives you more bang for the buck, but rather which best fits your particular mission requirements.
Clearly if all you want to do is fly around the pattern and go 50 miles max for a fly in breakfast you can be very happy with almost anything.
If you want to routinely make 3-400 mile trips over the eastern part of the country I think the 20 is more than adequate and provides great utility at a great price.
On the other hand the 81 gallons usable of the 22 allows the 22 to excel on longer flights. I often fly 600-750 NM trips and the 22 usually allows me to do this non stop with 1.5 hour reserves. The 20 would require a stop routinely. Since both my wife and I really prefer non stops (if you saw my landings you would understand why my wife wants to minimize them) so the 22 makes more sense for my particular needs.
It would also be better if I were based in the mountains since the 22’s rate of climb is really a benefit in high DA situations.
What I’m trying to say is that both are great planes. Which is “better” depends on what you want to use it for. Whether the increase in performance is worth the extra money is an individual decision (like whether Skywatch is worth it) and there is no right or wrong answer.
In reply to:
The speed difference is not the reason to get a 22. The climb and useful load differences are more important
OK; We will ad Hyundai to the list to compare along with Cessna 172 and Tiger.
Truth is that I agree that the 22 is a better climber, but payload is not that much different. With full fuel, my payload is 579 lbs (assuming 336 lbs gas / 56 gal) useful load is 915
Eddie;
I share your “ignorance is bliss” approach. (except when flying) (remember the TCAD)
I expect what I think I am looking for is a “bang for the buck” index. Yes, that can be very convoluted, but since this is the public forum, and many come here to better understand the 2 aircraft, I thought it was worth the discussion.
In reply to:
I’m one of those fellows who just wants to put gas in the plane and go. If I ever stopped and added up ALL the expenses and converted to an hourly cost, I’d probably just get depressed and possibly fly less.
I too think in similar terms.[:)]
Dennis,
Actually, full fuel payload for some 20’s is better then some 22’s. Tricked out (no A/C), it appears many 22’s are weighing in at 2325-2340 with a useful load around 1060 less fuel of 486 = 574. My 20 is 930 less 336 = 594!
Fortunately, I am getting darn near book ave. 158 knots.
A new ''22 is about $375K. My 2000 '20 is worth about $170K. No way is a new '22 worth + $200K for me to move up for a little better speed and climb performance. Add 200 lbs. of useful load to the '22 and you get my interest.
Looking at Mike’s recent comparison on his usual trip to ORF…not a good trade off for me getting there only 20 minutes sooner and a little more fuel (don’t care much about fuel cost…ROP all the way…anyway).
We fly to BCT 2X per year and the '22 would get us there 40 minutes sooner. I got the extra 40 minutes and I prefer to be in the air.
However, if most of my flying was 600-1000nm (or more) biz runs, as Dr. Jerry pointed out, the '22 works better.
For my 100-400 mile personal excursions, got all I need.
So comparing the 100-500 nm usual trips…the '22 doesn’t stack up without a serious load improvement.
With this type of flying, the only difference is bragging rights (testosterone!) IMHO.
In reply to:
The SR22 is a great value when compared to almost any other GA plane with similar capabilities. The SR20 is a spectacular value even when compared to the SR22.
Marty,
I have very little desire to get into the debate about the relative values of an SR20 vs. the SR22 – as others have noted, the SR20 is a fantastic value. I loved my SR20, and I love my SR22. Value is whatever it means to the buyer/owner. IOW, I agree with you.
However, I couldn’t NOT dip my toe into the discussion, if only because I have flown an SR20 a bunch, and am now getting to know an SR22. Mainly, though, being compulsive about keeping in-flight logs has to pay off somehow!
Of the trips I do fairly often, there is only one that I’ve done “cleanly” (i.e. directly) in both the SR20 and the SR22, and that’s the run between my home field (BLM) and Norfolk (ORF), a distance of 222 NM down V1. I’ve extracted some data from 5 trips in the SR20, and compared it with the one trip I’ve made so far in the SR22. Perhaps after I’ve done more like this in the '22, I’ll revisit this comparison, so that some of the variables can average out. On this one SR22 trip, there was a direct crosswind of between 40 and 50 knots the whole way.
Anyway, here’s how it stacks up:
SR20:
DATE LEG TIME GALS GS GPH MPG
8/16/03 BLM-ORF 1:42 22.7 131 13.4 9.8
8/18/03 ORF-BLM 1:45 19.5 127 11.1 11.4
9/16/03 ORF-BLM 1:44 20.2 128 11.7 11.0
9/29/03 BLM-ORF 1:34 20.8 142 13.3 10.7
9/29/03 ORF-BLM 1:38 18.5 136 11.3 12.0
--------------------------------------------
AVERAGE SR20 1:41 20.3 133 12.2 11.0
SR22:
12/15/03 BLM-ORF 1:24 24.2 159 17.3 9.2
That, and a subway token, will get you a ride on the subway.
In reply to:
On a different matter, can you really get 157 KTAS on 10 GPH?
In my SR20, 157 KTAS was strictly a 12.5-13.0 GPH, ROP deal. 10 GPH LOP would give me around 145 KTAS (summer) to 148 KTAS (winter).
- Mike.
I think there is little doubt that the SR20 is the best bargain in new aircraft; Cirrus has persevered in selling it at a visionary price, which hasn’t left room for profit. As a result they’ve rationed the planes, which means they not only are a bargain to buy, but hold their value exceptionally well.
The SR22 is in a completely different class. Its the best of the best, and actually at quite a fair price. You will take a big depreciation hit with it since the scarcity premium no longer exists. But if you can afford it there’s nothing that wipes the smile off, even the knowledge that the SR20 drivers got a bargain.
In reply to:
Actually it sounds like you’re comparing the SR20 ROP to the SR22 LOP.
Yup. Wouldn’t you have to fly the SR20 ROP to get in the 155 - 160 KTAS? And, why would anyone fly the SR22 ROP if all they wanted was 155 - 160 KTAS? Wasn’t the purpose to compare operating costs on a identical trip at 160 KTAS?
In reply to:
Wasn’t the purpose to compare operating costs on a identical trip at 160 KTAS?
Actually, no!
The purpose was to compare operating costs on identical trips of 500 miles. In other words, what is the real and total costs related to getting there 20 min sooner, or less if we calculate startup to shutdown
In reply to:
showing a picture of a 235 GS loses some of its luster in a 600FPM descent.
Mike,
He SAID it was during the descent!
Here’s one from today – straight and level, but with a nice 33 kt tailwind, 74.5% power LOP ( 15.4 GPH), or 12.8 NMPG.
- Mike.
If Ed’s speed in a descent wasn’t good enough, how about this one in a SR20 from Kisp @7500/75% 221KT
Here’s the other one which actually impressed me more because the G/S was 202 in a 400FPM climb & it was three months after coming out of 24 years in a C172
John
N468JP
SR20 #1261
Mike-
What’s with all those smudges and fingerprints on your PFD?
I would expect that on most planes, but not yours. You must be slipping:)
In reply to:
12.8 NMPG.
Getting back to the original question, that’s an interesting data point - in the SR20 without tailwind, 16-17 NMPG LOP is the norm.
I didn’t know it took more time to start up and shut down an SR22 compared to an SR20. Why is this? Certainly adding the ground time will reduce the percentage difference in trip time but I would have thought the absolute difference would remain 20 minutes or whatever the air time difference is.
That is my point as to the ground time. As an element or percentage of overall time / cost of operation, time on the ground must be figured in and thus deminishes to performance differential.
But what you said was:
"costs related to getting there 20 min sooner, or less if we calculate startup to shutdown "
That seemed to imply that adding ground time would reduce the absolute difference in trip time. It doesn’t unless time on the ground differs. Either way the difference stays 20 minutes. Adding startup to shutdown doesn’t reduce the 20 minute difference. As Pat Paulson would have said
“Picky, picky, picky”
If you want to feel bad, compare the numbers to the upcoming Twinstar from Diamond. Look at the fuel burn at 110kts. I seem to remember it’s around 3 gph. There are just too many things that go into getting a plane and few are rational.
In reply to:
What’s with all those smudges and fingerprints on your PFD?
I would expect that on most planes, but not yours. You must be slipping:)
Mike,
I was almost too embarrassed to post that photo! I really do try to keep the screens clean. I try not to touch the screen, and I never remember doing it, yet I often find fingerprints on them when I’m the only person who has been in the 'plane.
So yes, I’m slipping. [:(]
- Mike.
John,
I did 1 knot better in my SR20. Tailwind component was 68 knots at 9,000’.
Same day, different direction…
… and yes, it was straight and level. In fact, the GS dropped low enough that when ATC said they couldn’t see my transponder, I found that it had gone to STANDBY – GS < 30! Headwind component at 12,000’ was 120 knots! This was an Angel Flight - anything lower was just too bumpy for the passengers. Fortunately, the winds got more reasonable as I inched forward, or I’d still be up there. [;)]
- Mike.
I’m still wondering who the first member of the 300k club will be!