Handling and speed of SR20 vs. C172

spiderweb

spiderweb

Final Approach
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
9,488
Display Name
Display name:
Ben
Annoyingly, the place I rent no longer has C182s, and the Skyhawks are just a little slow for 300 nm trips with three people.

However, this place does have SR20s.

Now, can anyone who has flown both give me some experience and data points regarding speeds (practical block times), fuel burn, comfort, and transition time for a 600-hr instrument-rated pilot w/ 50 hours of G1000 time?

I fogot to add price points:

C172 G1000 is $145 per hour, wet
SR20 Perspective is $215 per hour, wet

Will it work out to the same price, dollar per mile?

I'd appreciate it!
 
Last edited:
The Sr20 is alot wider and will be much more comfortable with 3 people.
 
I always related an SR 20 to an Arrow in mission, never flew the 20.
 
Henning said:
I always related an SR 20 to an Arrow in mission, never flew the 20.
Click to expand...

Similar speed, capacity, economy. Greater room and simplicity with the cirrus though. Arrow seats come out easy, cirrus "sort of" fold, but not really.
 
It's a Forrest Gump gouge. 200hp does X amount of work. The SR 20 may be more efficient in the wing, but it is dirty, so it will do about the same speed, 140 depending how you run it. It's the same basic plane, capable of 4 light people, me and all my friends growing up were light, I'm back; on a 450nm trip with no problem. What is it, 2.22 miles per minute?
 
Last edited:
At those prices the SR20 is 10% more expensive per mile than the 172. (assuming 155 kts and 115 kts cruise). So it depends how much you value your time and comfort.
 
spiderweb said:
Will it work out to the same price, dollar per mile?
Click to expand...
Clearly there must be a price 'penalty' for all these fine leather seats, wider cabin, parachutes, higher ceilings, etc., don't you think? ;)
 
pericynthion said:
At those prices the SR20 is 10% more expensive per mile than the 172. (assuming 155 kts and 115 kts cruise). So it depends how much you value your time and comfort.
Click to expand...

No sir, for most people that is actually "how much do you value the technology and BRS?" The BRS is a premium marketing device there is no doubt about it. Like SVT and 406, BRS revolutionized the option package available to you when every goes to sh-t. People are willing to pay for these revolutionary advances in safety and they are willing to pay dearly. A 10% premium for that chute on SE plane that is flying in weather and terrain is not a bad premium to some people.
 
Last edited:
With wheel pants, plan on a TAS around 138 - 142 knots with a fuel burn around 10.8 - 11.2 gph. Without wheel pants plan 127 - 131 knots true. I found my students transitioned very nicely to the Perspective system, I found it fairly intuitive.

It is a very comfortable airplane and I fully realize that I am spoiled instructing in a fleet of brand new SR20s. That said, they are still awesome comfort wise. It is much more comfortable than a C172 in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Haven't flown an sr20 but I think 155kts is a pipe dream for that airplane.
 
HPNPilot1200 said:
With wheel pants, plan on a TAS around 138 - 142 knots with a fuel burn around 10.8 - 11.2 gph. Without wheel pants plan 127 - 131 knots true. I found my students transitioned very nicely to the Perspective system, I found it fairly intuitive. It is a very comfortable airplane and realize that I am spoiled that I sit right seat and instruct in a fleet of SR20s. It is much more comfortable than a C172 in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Really? That much fuel? At what altitude?
 
I flew the SR22. Fun machine. Its slippery so things will happen faster and you'll have to plan descents. I didn't have any problem with the side stick. In fact, I found it to be very comfortable. It's also very responsive. Taxiing is different. You'll have to use differential breaking, and when you're taking off its all rudder keeping you on the runway. As for the avionics, I found the G1000 to be much more intuitive, but again, I spent more time with the G1000. The only thing it's missing is a second engine ;). Give it a shot. You'll love the visibility!
 
pericynthion said:
At those prices the SR20 is 10% more expensive per mile than the 172. (assuming 155 kts and 115 kts cruise). So it depends how much you value your time and comfort.
Click to expand...

Can I really expect 155 kts?
 
Henning said:
No sir, for most people that is actually "how much do you value the technology and BRS?" The BRS is a premium marketing device there is no doubt about it. Like SVT and 406, BRS revolutionized the option package available to you when every goes to sh-t. People are willing to pay for these revolutionary advances in safety and they are willing to pay dearly. A 10% premium for that chute on SE plane that is flying in weather and terrain is not a bad premium to some people.
Click to expand...

True.

But the reason I am valuing speed and comfort here is that I am taking my wife and her student (also a lady). If I can make it to Boston in 2.5 hours instead of 3.5, I might not have to make a potty stop!
 
HPNPilot1200 said:
With wheel pants, plan on a TAS around 138 - 142 knots with a fuel burn around 10.8 - 11.2 gph. Without wheel pants plan 127 - 131 knots true. I found my students transitioned very nicely to the Perspective system, I found it fairly intuitive.

It is a very comfortable airplane and I fully realize that I am spoiled instructing in a fleet of brand new SR20s. That said, they are still awesome comfort wise. It is much more comfortable than a C172 in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Wow. I have lots of time in a DA-40. Without wheel pants, I could run 138-142 KTAS at right around 9 gph. Yet another reason to stay away from the wet wing, I suppose.
 
spiderweb said:
True.

But the reason I am valuing speed and comfort here is that I am taking my wife and her student (also a lady). If I can make it to Boston in 2.5 hours instead of 3.5, I might not have to make a potty stop!
Click to expand...

Time for you to buy a 310... :popcorn::D;)
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Wow. I have lots of time in a DA-40. Without wheel pants, I could run 138-142 KTAS at right around 9 gph. Yet another reason to stay away from the wet wing, I suppose.
Click to expand...

I've never seen a DA-40 do that speed, 133-135 is what I always saw.
 
Henning said:
Really? That much fuel? At what altitude?
Click to expand...

About 6,000 - 8,000 feet or so. My employer requires us to cruise at 75 deg rich of peak EGT (not my decision). Lean of peak I'm sure the fuel flow would be closer to the 9gph mark. We follow the Cirrus POH recommendation for best power.
 
Henning said:
I've never seen a DA-40 do that speed, 133-135 is what I always saw.
Click to expand...

How old? Which prop? The XL and new models are a bit quicker, and honest to god, the 3-blade prop is a solid 8 knots slower. I flew the last flight on a DA-40 that had a 3-blade prop and the 1st on a 2-blade. It's a solid 8 knot difference.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
How old? Which prop? The XL and new models are a bit quicker, and honest to god, the 3-blade prop is a solid 8 knots slower. I flew the last flight on a DA-40 that had a 3-blade prop and the 1st on a 2-blade. It's a solid 8 knot difference.
Click to expand...

I think the cabin on the DA-40 is narrower, allowing for a faster airspeed with less horsepower.
 
I would take the sr20 for that mission if the extra cost doesnt bother you. 2.5hrs is much more comfortable.

I know a lot of fbos's/ insurance require 10 hours dual in the sr20 regardless of flying time and experience. I flew a 7 hour trip in an sr20 and felt better than If i had driven 7 hours. Very comfortable interior compared to a 172, especially for back seat passenger.
 
POHs for the 200 HP SR20 and 160 HP C172N. I couldn't find performance for a newer C172, but I'll bet that just by reducing power you can get the same numbers, so here they are:

Performance in cruise, from Section 5, at 6000 feet, standard temperature:

SR20: 65% power, 144 KTAS, 9.2 GPH
C172N: 67% power, 115 KTAS, 7.6 GPH

You said that you're renting wet, at C172 $145, SR20 $215 per hour. That works out to:
SR20 cruise: $1.49/NM
C172 cruise: $1.26/NM

For comparison, driving costs $0.55/SM = $0.63/NM (IRS mileage rate for business).

Of course, you won't just be paying for cruise. Taxiing etc. will add to the cost, and it will exacerbate the higher hourly cost of the more expensive plane.

Aside: it doesn't affect you if you're renting wet, but interestingly the fuel costs per NM are pretty much the same at 15 gallons per nautical mile for both planes.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
I always related an SR 20 to an Arrow in mission
Click to expand...

That's true, for performance, with the edge to the SR20 for speed.

As others have said, the comfort and passenger experience is much better in the SR20 -- that's what I found when I rented both planes the same afternoon.
 
HPNPilot1200 said:
About 6,000 - 8,000 feet or so. My employer requires us to cruise at 75 deg rich of peak EGT (not my decision). Lean of peak I'm sure the fuel flow would be closer to the 9gph mark. We follow the Cirrus POH recommendation for best power.
Click to expand...

Wow! Few of the Cirrus owners I know fly ROP. I would guess a 2GPH difference for LOP but I haven't flown a 20 in a long time. POH says 8.5 GPH when LOP.
 
spiderweb said:
Now, can anyone who has flown both give me some experience and data points regarding speeds
Click to expand...
The SR20 is a solid 145 knot TAS performer at 75% power. A 172R is a 115 knot plane, and a 172S is a 125 knot plane.

(practical block times)
Click to expand...
Do the math, but a lot depends on stage lengths. Extra speed doesn't do much on flights less than an hour or so, but makes a big difference on 3-4 hour flights.

fuel burn,
Click to expand...
Figure 8.5 gph for a 172R, 10 gph for a 172S, and 11.5 gps for an SR20 at 75% cruise properly leaned.

comfort,
Click to expand...
Easier (and drier when it's raining) getting in and out of a 172. Seating is far more comfortable in the SR.

and transition time for a 600-hr instrument-rated pilot w/ 50 hours of G1000 time?
Click to expand...
5 hours flight training, depending on G1000 and generaly pilot proficiency, although insurance may require more. Ground time depends on how good a self-studier you are, but the on-line Cirrus course will probably take you a day or two on the computer.
 
Last edited:
SR20 hands down. It is close enough economically, and the intangibles of comfort, modern design, ramp appeal and wow factor for your pax are worth it.
 
NoHeat said:
POHs for the 200 HP SR20 and 160 HP C172N. I couldn't find performance for a newer C172, but I'll bet that just by reducing power you can get the same numbers, so here they are:

Performance in cruise, from Section 5, at 6000 feet, standard temperature:

SR20: 65% power, 144 KTAS, 9.2 GPH
C172N: 67% power, 115 KTAS, 7.6 GPH

You said that you're renting wet, at C172 $145, SR20 $215 per hour. That works out to:
SR20 cruise: $1.49/NM
C172 cruise: $1.26/NM

For comparison, driving costs $0.55/SM = $0.63/NM (IRS mileage rate for business).

Of course, you won't just be paying for cruise. Taxiing etc. will add to the cost, and it will exacerbate the higher hourly cost of the more expensive plane.

Aside: it doesn't affect you if you're renting wet, but interestingly the fuel costs per NM are pretty much the same at 15 gallons per nautical mile for both planes.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure you meant 15 nautical miles per gallon :)
 
My old (shouldn't have sold) 2006 SR 20 would do 300 nm in about 2 hours and 15 min, depending on ATC routing and runway headings, etc. If clean (washed), I would cruise at 150+kts TAS on 9.4 GPH 40 LOP. If dirty (bugs, dirt, etc), I would cruise at 144-148kts TAS on 9.4 GPH 40 LOP. I would flight plan 12 GPH for the first hour and 10 for the rest of the trip. The 56 Gallon (useable), would give me 5 hours of flight time, which was way beyond our XC legs. For that long of a flight (300 nm), I would cruise between 6000-11000 ft. The only issue with the 20 is at 11,000 ft your only climbing at 250' per min to keep a solid forward speed. I would only do a best rate of climb if there was a tail wind worth riding! Besides that the 20 is a blast to fly, great handling and performance. Remember, 71-73 kts on final or else it will float forever.
 
NoHeat said:
POHs for the 200 HP SR20 and 160 HP C172N. I couldn't find performance for a newer C172, but I'll bet that just by reducing power you can get the same numbers, so here they are:

Performance in cruise, from Section 5, at 6000 feet, standard temperature:

SR20: 65% power, 144 KTAS, 9.2 GPH
C172N: 67% power, 115 KTAS, 7.6 GPH

You said that you're renting wet, at C172 $145, SR20 $215 per hour. That works out to:
SR20 cruise: $1.49/NM
C172 cruise: $1.26/NM

For comparison, driving costs $0.55/SM = $0.63/NM (IRS mileage rate for business).

Of course, you won't just be paying for cruise. Taxiing etc. will add to the cost, and it will exacerbate the higher hourly cost of the more expensive plane.

Aside: it doesn't affect you if you're renting wet, but interestingly the fuel costs per NM are pretty much the same at 15 gallons per nautical mile for both planes.
Click to expand...


Also, if you can eliminate a fuel / pee stop you can make the SR-20 work out to be around the same price.
 
Thanks for this!

NoHeat said:
POHs for the 200 HP SR20 and 160 HP C172N. I couldn't find performance for a newer C172, but I'll bet that just by reducing power you can get the same numbers, so here they are:

Performance in cruise, from Section 5, at 6000 feet, standard temperature:

SR20: 65% power, 144 KTAS, 9.2 GPH
C172N: 67% power, 115 KTAS, 7.6 GPH

You said that you're renting wet, at C172 $145, SR20 $215 per hour. That works out to:
SR20 cruise: $1.49/NM
C172 cruise: $1.26/NM

For comparison, driving costs $0.55/SM = $0.63/NM (IRS mileage rate for business).

Of course, you won't just be paying for cruise. Taxiing etc. will add to the cost, and it will exacerbate the higher hourly cost of the more expensive plane.

Aside: it doesn't affect you if you're renting wet, but interestingly the fuel costs per NM are pretty much the same at 15 gallons per nautical mile for both planes.
Click to expand...
 
jmp470 said:
If clean (washed), I would cruise at 150+kts TAS on 9.4 GPH 40 LOP. If dirty (bugs, dirt, etc), I would cruise at 144-148kts TAS on 9.4 GPH 40 LOP.
Click to expand...

The DA-40 is the same, with respect to bugs. Clean the LE of the wings off and it picked up a few knots.
 
Thanks, Ron!

Ron Levy said:
The SR20 is a solid 145 knot TAS performer at 75% power. A 172R is a 115 knot plane, and a 172S is a 125 knot plane.

Do the math, but a lot depends on stage lengths. Extra speed doesn't do much on flights less than an hour or so, but makes a big difference on 3-4 hour flights.

Figure 8.5 gph for a 172R, 10 gph for a 172S, and 11.5 gps for an SR20 at 75% cruise properly leaned.

Easier (and drier when it's raining) getting in and out of a 172. Seating is far more comfortable in the SR.

5 hours flight training, depending on G1000 and generaly pilot proficiency, although insurance may require more. Ground time depends on how good a self-studier you are, but the on-line Cirrus course will probably take you a day or two on the computer.
Click to expand...
 
Ron Levy said:
5 hours flight training, depending on G1000 and generaly pilot proficiency, although insurance may require more. Ground time depends on how good a self-studier you are, but the on-line Cirrus course will probably take you a day or two on the computer.
Click to expand...

Ron, is that a free online course? Do you have a link?
 
Ron Levy said:
The SR20 is a solid 145 knot TAS performer at 75% power. A 172R is a 115 knot plane, and a 172S is a 125 knot plane.
Click to expand...

Revisiting your post, I am wondering about your numbers for the Skyhawks. With the 172R, I -could- get 115 knots, but everything had to be perfect. With the 172S, I expect about 115 knots, but sometimes see 120--but never 125. (All numbers here are TAS.)

Granted, these are all aircraft without wheel pants. But I wanted to ask you if you've really seen 125 knots in the S?

By way of comparison, I expect 135 knots in the C182, but sometimes get 140 knots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top