SR 20 vs 172sp operating costs?

W

wrighthenry

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
133
Location
Clemson, SC
Display Name
Display name:
wrighthenry
With the price of G1 sr 20's getting down to almost reasonable levels, I've started wondering what are the operating costs differences between it and a 172sp of a similar year? I've read through the COPA site some and have a very general idea of the gotchas of the sr 20. For instance, I would be looking at a sr 20 with a chute repack and avid yen mfd instead of Arnav with hopefully a 430w and a mid time engine.
It looks like acquisition costs between the two planes are pretty close. Would maintenance on the 20 be that much more?
 
Two techs in our shop previously worked at the local Cirrus Service Center. They say the post-warranty MX on the older planes is significantly higher than others they previously maintained. FWIW.

wrighthenry said:
With the price of G1 sr 20's getting down to almost reasonable levels, I've started wondering what are the operating costs differences between it and a 172sp of a similar year? I've read through the COPA site some and have a very general idea of the gotchas of the sr 20. For instance, I would be looking at a sr 20 with a chute repack and avid yen mfd instead of Arnav with hopefully a 430w and a mid time engine.
It looks like acquisition costs between the two planes are pretty close. Would maintenance on the 20 be that much more?
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Two techs in our shop previously worked at the local Cirrus Service Center. They say the post-warranty MX on the older planes is significantly higher than others they previously maintained. FWIW.
Click to expand...

COPA is definitely the best place to ask. I would expect expenses to be higher just because there is so much more "stuff" on the SR20. If equipped with 430W avionics then there are database expenses for the 430W, Avidyne MFD and, if equipped and yo want it, Jepp charts. The basic airframe of the SR20 is strong and I don't expect issues there. The interior of the older ones is fragile and the instrument wiring can cause issues due to short wires and cheap connectors. That however can be cured with a one time fix. On the other side, the 20 will be roomier and faster and the avionics will almost certainly be vastly superior unless you are looking at a G1000 equipped 172 and even then the electrical system will be better. The Cirrus (with exception of earliest SR20) is totally electric. My one last comment is that I would take an older 22 over a newer 20 if possible. The extra horsepower transforms the plane. Climb, load and high altitude capability are a bigger deal here than the speed difference.
 
Electrical problems with the 20's topped the list of the complaints reported by our techs. Did Cirrus ever refit the engine mounts of the older 20's to the new design? An acquaintance was involved in a lawsuit due to excess vibration from the original mount design.

peppy said:
COPA is definitely the best place to ask. I would expect expenses to be higher just because there is so much more "stuff" on the SR20. If equipped with 430W avionics then there are database expenses for the 430W, Avidyne MFD and, if equipped and yo want it, Jepp charts. The basic airframe of the SR20 is strong and I don't expect issues there. The interior of the older ones is fragile and the instrument wiring can cause issues due to short wires and cheap connectors. That however can be cured with a one time fix. On the other side, the 20 will be roomier and faster and the avionics will almost certainly be vastly superior unless you are looking at a G1000 equipped 172 and even then the electrical system will be better. The Cirrus (with exception of earliest SR20) is totally electric. My one last comment is that I would take an older 22 over a newer 20 if possible. The extra horsepower transforms the plane. Climb, load and high altitude capability are a bigger deal here than the speed difference.
Click to expand...
 
Probably being naive here but shouldn't a well maintained 12-13 year old cirrus have all of the electrical gremlins ironed out?
 
Evidently not or they wouldn't be bitching about them.

wrighthenry said:
Probably being naive here but shouldn't a well maintained 12-13 year old cirrus have all of the electrical gremlins ironed out?
Click to expand...
 
Aviation Consumer has had a couple of articles within the past 2 years on buying "older" glass-panel airplanes. It might be worth a look.
 
doesn't the chute have to be checked every so many years? I heard that's a pretty expensive procedure.
 
wrighthenry said:
Probably being naive here but shouldn't a well maintained 12-13 year old cirrus have all of the electrical gremlins ironed out?
Click to expand...

Probably. The early ones had the wires short so they got stressed. It wasn’t that expensive to just fix it. It wasn't all of the wiring. It was the engine gauges with manifold pressure being the worst.

To answer another questions, only the very earliest (first year?) SR20's had a vacuum pump. By the introduction of the SR22 ALL Cirrus planes had dual electrical systems.
 
Last edited:
peppy said:
Even a G1000 C172 or C182 has a vacuum pump and single electrical system if I remember correctly. A friend had a 182 and bitched about that.
Click to expand...

True. Vacuum is for the standbys so I suppose you could eliminate it. Why ***** about it? I always liked the non-electrical aspect as a fail safe.
 
Alexb2000 said:
True. Vacuum is for the standbys so I suppose you could eliminate it. Why ***** about it? I always liked the non-electrical aspect as a fail safe.
Click to expand...

Because it has moving parts that fail, filters that need changing, gyros that wear out....
 
Nosewheel and wheel pant repairs can be an added maintenance cost for the SR20 compared to the 172, if you don't land it right. If it's a rental or trainer that might be a big issue, but if you fly it yourself all the time and you make sure that you're trained by a Cirrus certified instructor that probably won't be such a big concern.

Another additional cost is replacing not one but two batteries. Luckily the #2 battery is cheaper than the #1, especially if you replace it yourself.

NationAir is an insurance broker that serves many Cirrus owners, along with others of course, so I would call them for a quote when you're comparing insurance cost.

A 430 will serve you as well as a 430W unless you need to fly LPV approaches. I think some SR20s came with a Garmin 400 which lacks a NavCom, and that's something you might care more about.
 
peppy said:
. . . .

My one last comment is that I would take an older 22 over a newer 20 if possible. The extra horsepower transforms the plane. Climb, load and high altitude capability are a bigger deal here than the speed difference.
Click to expand...

I strongly second that comment.
 
Depends. Cost per hour, or cost per mile?

I bet the Cirrus wins the latter and loses the former.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Depends. Cost per hour, or cost per mile?

I bet the Cirrus wins the latter and loses the former.
Click to expand...

Based upon the POH for the 20 economy cruise is 16mpg (135 knots at 8.4gph). The 22 comes to 14mpg (160 knots at 11.3gph). The 172 is 13.6 (107 knots at 7.8mpg).
 
ArtPileggi said:
Based upon the POH for the 20 economy cruise is 16mpg (135 knots at 8.4gph). The 22 comes to 14mpg (160 knots at 11.3gph). The 172 is 13.6 (107 knots at 7.8mpg).
Click to expand...

Only a slight advantage in fuel, but there are a lot more operating costs than just fuel.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Only a slight advantage in fuel, but there are a lot more operating costs than just fuel.
Click to expand...
Kent, you're an experienced pilot. Despite now flying around in retractable luxury, if given the choice between buying a used SR 20 and a 172SP, which would you pick, and why?
 
For personal transportation I would get the SR20. Speed makes it the better travel plane, comfortable cabin etc.
I would stay away from the first two model years on both the post-restart Cesssnas and the Cirrus. Took both companies a while to work out the kinks.
Get pro-forma insurance quotes for both, assuming identical hull values.
 
I can't compare a cirrus to a 172, but I can say the comparison between a 172 and a cessna/columbia 350 which I can do is no comparison at all. The new airplanes are so much nicer although more expensive to own but not ridiculously so. Way more comfortable.
 
nddons said:
Kent, you're an experienced pilot. Despite now flying around in retractable luxury, if given the choice between buying a used SR 20 and a 172SP, which would you pick, and why?
Click to expand...

SR20, hands down. I fly mainly for travel (even if it's relatively short distances sometimes - My last flight was to MSN for a flying club board meeting, that's 55-ish nm) so speed is important. Not that it'll save a ton on a short trip, but 150 KTAS vs. 115-120 is significant.

I was just having this conversation with Ted via PM. Going from a 105-knot trainer to 135-140-knot birds like the C182 and DA40 we have in the club is about a 30% difference in speed for a cost per mile that's nearly identical, in the neighborhood of $1/nm. Going from the 135-140 knot birds to the Mooney Ovation is about a 25% increase in speed for about a 10% or less increase in cost per nm. Stepping up to the next faster class of planes, though, to get another 20% speed and go to the 210-knot range means a cost increase of approximately :hairraise: for not much difference in travel time.

I like the Ovation. Given the choice you pose, definitely the SR20.
 
The SR20 will win on comfort and speed and usually on avionics. An SR22 will transform the experience because the climb rate will make mountain flying so much nicer and 8K'+ altitudes will be standard for long trips.

When it comes to speed, where it really matters is when there are headwinds. Hint: There are always headwinds. Assume a 20 knot headwind and run the numbers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top