Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Welcome to our forums

Socata TB20 VS Cirrus SR22

What do you think abaut this aircraft’s?

Flying experience,
Maintenence cost,
Service. etc…
Now getting cheaper the SR22.
Whitch a good choice?


Last Edited by Zozi at 02 Oct 19:29
LHSA, Hungary

The parachute is parachute of the Cirrus does give you great comfort. I fly regularly without a chute but it does give you a very comfortable feeling knowing that you have the chute when flying IMC in the Cirrus.

I have not flown the TB20 but it is obviously a good aircraft too.

Sweden, Sweden

All things being equal an SR22 is obviously better plane than an TB20 but all things are not equal in particular price.

Last Edited by JasonC at 02 Oct 21:25
EGTK Oxford

SR22 is 4*capital price and 2*running cost of TB20 for roughly the same pilot/mission IFR capability
The chute does come handy for regular “irrational” passenger concerns and also genuine tail risks

ESSEX, United Kingdom

Say you had €120k, the price of an entry-level SR22 in your paw. You would be better off spending that on a good TB20 than an entry-level SR22. One would likely be well sorted, the other could be “needy” to put it politely. I’m just thinking of examples of each that I have looked at first hand.

Buying, Selling, Flying
EIBR, Ireland

I would go for the SR22.

- Shute will give you a way out when flying at night / IMC / engine failure over inhospitable terrain. Or when you hit a large bird
- TB20 is not in production anymore so supply of spare parts might become an issue
- TB20 has retractable gear which needs regular maintenance and imposes the risk of a gear up landing

- TB20 has 60hp less engine power
- it’s a matter of taste but not everyone likes the TB20 cockpit which is based on a Renault from the 70s

TB20 has 60hp less engine power

Which is compensated with retractable gear. I would hate spilling fuel to compensate for same speed because of fixed gear. Usual difference for aircrafts of this size is 20-25 kts.

LDZA LDVA, Croatia

Join COPA for anything you want to know about Cirrus.

Flying experience: The SR22 is a wonderful touring plane. Easy to enter/exit. Roomy cabin. Lap space due sideyoke. I don’t like the spring loaded flight control system. I prefer to fly it on Autopilot. It’s easy to fly but is known to „bite“ if too slow.

Maintenence cost: Budget about 6-10k € a year for annuals (pumps, starter, batteries, chute …). Older avionics work as long as you have a 20k avionic reserve sitting in the bank.

Block speed is around 160kts at 15 usg.

Essentially a 100-150k SR22 is a good deal. The airplane can do most of anything a new 700k aircraft can do and flies the same speed. Avionics capability, fiki/tks, appearance and comfort are decreased. Upgrade options to DCF90 and GNS430W or IFD440 are „reasonably“ priced.

The chute is nice and works. I don’t want to ever use it. Coming down at 1700fpm over the alps doesn’t sound good. But better than hitting a ditch on a forced landing in some unknown ground.

Last Edited by Snoopy at 03 Oct 06:08
EASA CB IR Training

I have owned a TB20GT from new since 2002 and have about 2.5k hours in it, and been all over Europe in it.

WilliamF is right. The SR22 is in a higher bracket. The new models are over USD 1 million! In 2002, a TB21GT (roughly comparable to the S22 turbo but less payload) was about USD300k. You can get a good TB20GT for say 150k but only a poor SR22.

The retractable gear is a non issue provided you grease it as specified. Maintenance costs are negligible overall. That gear up video has been all over the internet and the two “pilots” were complete muppets; the video and the sound shows they didn’t know what that loud beeping was about. There are two interlocks on the gear, plus the aircraft flies approaches very differently (much faster) with gear up so it will “feel wrong” if you do it.

The TB20GT does about 140kt IAS at low level on 11.7 USG/hr and about 150kt TAS at FL100 on 10.5 USG/hr. The range to empty tanks at FL100 is about 1300nm and this will make it beat a faster aircraft if a fuel stop can be avoided. In Europe, with its often sparse avgas matrix, this can be important.

Parts are not an issue. As with all aircraft, airframe parts are expensive and the key is to avoid needing them, by buying a specimen which has not been neglected, and this includes proper lubrication (with grease, not “WD40” as so many people do).

The TB has no real “problem areas” when it comes to mechanics. It is a good design. This is not the case for other types which get frequent problems in specific areas.

The TB20 cockpit is an outstanding example of design and ergonomics, in a GA world which is largely stuck in the 1930s style-wise.

The yoke makes it nice to hand-fly precisely. It has no handling of flying issues; no surprises throughout the speed regime, and probably almost impossible to stall/spin. The SR22 does a very fast break however; speak to people who have done it and were too low to use the chute (I have).

Also see other TB threads – example.

Cirrus has excellent marketing and the “family friendly” chute, and this combination has achieved what nobody else managed before them: uncover new strata of customers. The bigger engine is also a good thing, but you burn more fuel per mile. Socata’s marketing was always … 1930s especially in the US where their failure was key to their demise in the piston market.

Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

When Peter gets a TBM I’ll buy his TB20 :)

EASA CB IR Training
30 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top