Skylane vs SR-20, reliability & maintenance

G

Gordon Freeman

Pre-Flight
Joined
Nov 7, 2019
Messages
71
Location
Colorado Springs, CO
Display Name
Display name:
GordonF
Hi all,
I am looking to acquire an aircraft to own, and potentially share with 2 other pilots at a local airport. The budget is $150k for a 4-seater single engine piston. I really enjoy flying high-wing aircraft for unobstructed view of terrain. Skylane has great weight capacity, short field requirements, and a proven frame. The SR-20 is a newer plane with glass cockpit and a 10kt faster cruise. However, this would be my first aircraft purchase so I'd love to hear from anyone who owns (or has owned) a Skylane or an SR-20 to give me their thoughts on overall reliability and maintenance.

I know there are other options out there for the money, but the thought here is to acquire a model that is very common and popular in order to find shares/renters more easily.

So far the biggest drawback on the SR-20 is the chute repack every 10 years ($20k) and overall larger maintenance costs.

I'm sure similar (vs) subjects have been discussed here at length. I would certainly love to hear any input that current/past owners can share. Many thanks.
 
I was between the same two airplanes and ended up in the 182. It isn't "Luxurious", but I true about 145kts, can go way further than a SR20, and can carry a lot more.
 
Not sure how those two aircraft are comparable since they don't share much other than having seating for 4. The C182 is more of a heavy hauler 4-seater that does most things well, but doesn't excel at anything in particular. The SR20 is a fast 172. Enough useful load for 4 adults, but you'll only have 2-3hrs worth of fuel aboard with 200lb guys in the seats. The C182 will haul 4 - 200lbs guys and their gear, with fuel about as long as their bladders will last. The trade-off for that load-hauling capability is cruising speed/fuel burn. You need to know what your mission is going to be: hauling 4 full-sized people and their things 80% of the time, or 2-3 adults and some bags for occasional weekend trips.
 
I asked our mechanic this same question back in October. He does several 172, 182, Cherokee, Dakota, a Lance, a couple 414 a SR20 and at least one SR22.

He said the annual cost of the Skylane and the SR20 are very close to each if the chute, line cutter pyro stuff is omitted. I was kind of surprised. Then he added "You know what is awesome about the Cirrus...I can get the parts in a day and they are available". Our old fixed gear non turbo Skylane annuals have been between 1750 and 2400 and last year we redid the windshield which wasn't needed but hes retiring and I really wanted him doing that for us.
 
Gordon Freeman said:
I really enjoy flying high-wing aircraft for unobstructed view of terrain.
Click to expand...
No time in a Cirrus but lots of time in 182 and Mooney. I never found the 182 to be all that great in terms of view of terrain. View forward over the nose is ok but not great and there is just something about the size and position of the side windows and the wing strut and always felt just as 'in the way' to me as having to look at the ground around the Mooney wing. If you want to watch the ground, a Supercub is what you want otherwise you're going to deal with having parts of the plane in the way of your view.

Like others have said, there isn't really a ton of mission overlap between the 182 and the SR20. If the SR20 is what really fits your mission, you're probably not going to love the fuel burn/speed of the 182. If the 182 is what you really need, you're probably not going to love the useful load/range of the SR20.

Since potential partners is part of your prospective model, I would try to get a feel for what the demand is in your area in terms of potential partners. If I had both a 182 and an SR20 looking for partners in my area, I'd likely look at the SR20 first because my personal mission rates speed/fuel burn higher than being able to fill the plane with anvils.
 
Current Skylane owner of a 1976 version, and friend to an A&P who works on a fleet of Cirri daily: your Continental engine in both have the same reliability from a probability of unscheduled maintenance standpoint.

Not sure where you’ll find a glass cockpit Cirrus to match the lower purchase cost of an older Skylane, unless you’re talking about later models.

I’d look at resale value, chute pros, and chute cons to decide. Each buyer will be different on the chute call.
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
Current Skylane owner of a 1976 version, and friend to an A&P who works on a fleet of Cirri daily: your Continental engine in both have the same reliability from a probability of unscheduled maintenance standpoint.

Not sure where you’ll find a glass cockpit Cirrus to match the lower purchase cost of an older Skylane, unless you’re talking about later models.

I’d look at resale value, chute pros, and chute cons to decide. Each buyer will be different on the chute call.
Click to expand...
Agreed. The 182 is done depreciating, too...Cirrus isn't.
 
No replacement for displacement. Go with the higher horsepower one and find the lightest example you can find. Bona fide 4 seaters should all be 250HP minimum, but that's water under the bridge.
 
Gordon Freeman said:
The budget is $150k for a 4-seater single engine piston. I really enjoy flying high-wing aircraft for unobstructed view of terrain. Skylane has great weight capacity, short field requirements, and a proven frame. The SR-20 is a newer plane with glass cockpit and a 10kt faster cruise. However, this would be my first aircraft purchase so I'd love to hear from anyone who owns (or has owned) a Skylane or an SR-20 to give me their thoughts on overall reliability and maintenance.
Click to expand...

At $150K you're in 182RG country with a higher GW than a fixed gear 182 and 155 Kt cruise with 4 non-FAA sized people and long legs. The panel may well not be all glass but very capable.
 
@ktup-flyer - sure you dont mean MPH? Our average ground speed for out and backs in the same headwind is almost always exactly 148mph which is just shy of 130kts. It's about 4mph faster with nose and main gear wheel pants.

Or maybe you are pponk?
 
Sinistar said:
@ktup-flyer - sure you dont mean MPH? Our average ground speed for out and backs in the same headwind is almost always exactly 148mph which is just shy of 130kts. It's about 4mph faster with nose and main gear wheel pants.

Or maybe you are pponk?
Click to expand...
Definitely knots. Stock R model.
 
I like your “keep cool” sticker.

Helped an aerobatic airshow guy push his plane into a hangar here overnight due to bad weather and looking in the cockpit saw a prominent sticker front & center on the panel that said “fly good, don’t suck”.
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
I like your “keep cool” sticker.

Helped an aerobatic airshow guy push his plane into a hangar here overnight due to bad weather and looking in the cockpit saw a prominent sticker front & center on the panel that said “fly good, don’t suck”.
Click to expand...
That would be Rob Holland. Nice guy
 
Sinistar said:
I'm seeing about 145mph or 129kts. Maybe you're not at full cruise yet? I take it the outer ring is PA corrected in knots though?
Click to expand...

The indicated is supposed to be calibrated in knots. That would be a very fast 182.
 
I flown 20s and they are great. They are not long distance machine if you are carrying 4 but 2 people you can do some damage. The 20 with the Lycoming I fly trues out at between 150 and 155 knots, the thing is fast. The 20 with the Continental is around 145. Fun airplane to fly, great IFR platform.
 
Sinistar said:
@ktup-flyer - sure you dont mean MPH? Our average ground speed for out and backs in the same headwind is almost always exactly 148mph which is just shy of 130kts. It's about 4mph faster with nose and main gear wheel pants.

Or maybe you are pponk?
Click to expand...

Not ktup-flyer, but I’ve owned 2 C182P that would cruise 145-147 KTAS (GPS 3 leg verified). One was PPonk the other an Airplains IO-520, both had 2 blade MT Props.

C182s seem to cruise between 125-150 KTAS depending on engine, speed mods and rigging. I’ve never flown an IO-550 equipped C182 but due to aerodynamics I’d guess 150-ish is about the limit for that airframe if everything is perfect.
 
szwinger said:
Not ktup-flyer, but I’ve owned 2 C182P that would cruise 145-147 KTAS (GPS 3 leg verified). One was PPonk the other an Airplains IO-520, both had 2 blade MT Props.

C182s seem to cruise between 125-150 KTAS depending on engine, speed mods and rigging. I’ve never flown an IO-550 equipped C182 but due to aerodynamics I’d guess 150-ish is about the limit for that airframe if everything is perfect.
Click to expand...

... and how much fuel you want to burn.
 
N1120A said:
What 182 fixed trues that fast?
Click to expand...

2012 non turbo 182 owner here, flying entirely within book parameters mine does 145ktas easily. I typically plan for 140 and if I’m light I regularly see 140-147ktas in Cruise, if I’m fully loaded 140, just me 145. However as you mentioned in a later post rigging and fitting must have something to do with it. I’ve noticed for any given power setting I’m about 5ktas and about .3gph lower than book value, however I have a friend who also has a 2012 182 and his regularly sees about 5ktas slower than book speed and about .2 worse burn than the book. We always joke that mine must have just been rigged a bit more straight!
 
To add substance to the convo a big decision in me getting a 182 was the ability to easily take 4 people, bags, and fly 2-3 hours. It’s an enjoyable plane to fly and I don’t need to worry about leaving things behind. If that’s what’s important than the cessna will beat out the cirrus. However if you’re using it more like a $100 burger plane and to take short trips without losing it up the cirrus will be more efficient and faster. They really are different planes
 
Last edited:
JustinD said:
2012 non turbo 182 owner here, flying entirely within book parameters mine does 145ktas easily. I typically plan for 140 and if I’m light I regularly see 140-147ktas in Cruise, if I’m fully loaded 140, just me 145. However as you mentioned in a later post rigging and fitting must have something to do with it. I’ve noticed for any given power setting I’m about 5ktas and about .3gph lower than book value, however I have a friend who also has a 2012 182 and his regularly sees about 5ktas slower than book speed and about .2 worse burn than the book. We always joke that mine must have just been rigged a bit more straight!
Click to expand...

That's my experience too.

The 2011 G1000 equipped 182T I rented for a couple of long cross countries in 2018 was similar.
The school I rented it from had removed all the wheel pants but it consistently did 135 kts TAS leaned aggressively. 140 was no effort if you pushed the fuel burn up.
 
N1120A said:
The indicated is supposed to be calibrated in knots. That would be a very fast 182.
Click to expand...
182 POH says KIAS is about 3kts higher than KCAS, so if @ktup-flyer says 145ktas figure on 142ktas. Plus, there was no mention of weights. I've seen like a 4kt spread between full tanks and fuel down to personal minimums.
 
asicer said:
182 POH says KIAS is about 3kts higher than KCAS, so if @ktup-flyer I've seen like a 4kt spread between full tanks and fuel down to personal minimums.
Click to expand...

The 182T POH/PIM even addresses this. The POH includes this note “ the true airspeed will increase approximately 1 knot for every 150 pounds below maximum gross weight. During normal cruise at power settings below 70%, the true airspeed will increase approximately 1 knot for every 125 pounds below maximum gross weight.”

so you can easily get to the 145 ktas range
 
Know what is better than a 182 or SR20? A Grumman Tiger.

ktup-flyer said:
I burn about 13gph. The SR20 is definitely more efficient
Click to expand...

SR20 is 10.5, give or take. I don't think they climb as well, so that is a factor.

MountainDude said:
Amazing plane. Not sure of the price, but likely a much better value than either 182 or SR20.
Click to expand...

That plane sure is a looker.
 
Pre-restart 182 cruise 135ktns, reboot are 5ktns faster. Wheel pants on adds 5ktns.

SR20 gives the significant other that piece of mind. I was seriously going to give up the 182 flying for a family flyer (young kids.) The climb is worse and the load is less but they fly wonderfully behind an autopilot. The problem is, the options for avionics is a bit limited.

A 182 is a great hand flyer. You don't have to lean on the trim knob as much as you do with the side stick. Stable in flight, has access to many avionics including a GFC500 and a bunch of mods (Sportsman, VGs.)

Stay away from the RGs if it's more than just you flying it. Gear is fine, it's the people who forget to put it down.
 
Last edited:
MountainDude said:
Amazing plane. Not sure of the price, but likely a much better value than either 182 or SR20.
Click to expand...

The CG envelope is going to be touchier in the V35 as well compared to the C182. The C182 more of a load and go, where the Bo will have to have consideration for fuel burn and such.
 
Wow... nice plane, and epic clean panel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top