Cirrus SR20 info

Having a fair number of hours on both, I would say two things, what ever you do fly a 22 and a 20 – the difference in performance may be more than you expect and decide whether you prefer Avidyne or Garmin. The Avidyne is actually very good, if a little dated. The digital auto pilot really is the most signifcant step forward in avionics (I dont think much else matters) but comes at a price of a much later and significantly more costly 22.

Who would buy it, and what has been done to make it VFR-only? Apart from fake product differentiation (common practice in many industries) the only way I can see of doing it which would make it genuinely cheaper to make would be non-certified avionics which got certified via the factory TC.

The idea was to sell the SR-V only to private pilots wanting to fly VFR only or to flight schools as a trainer. The aircraft was offered cheaper by using (e.g.) a GNS420 instead of the GNS430, meant no VHF/NAV capabilities hence no ILS / VOR navigation and a total reliance on GPS. As standard the SR20 had 2 GNS430 units, by fitting just one, this lowered the cost somewhat. If the customer wanted a second radio, some had a GNC250 installed as COM2.

They also dispensed with the standby artificial horizon and made the STEC 50 autopilot, which was standard on SR20s of that time period, an optional extra. Other cost reductions including dispensing with items such as fairings and using standard incandescent light bulbs instead of LEDs. It was discontinued in 2010, I believe……

Had a look at the performance figures I have for the SR20 and the numbers quoted sound pretty much like what the book sais.

150 kts @ around 12.5 GPH is what I see as top speed at around FL100, economy speeds between 135 and 145 kts at 8-10 GPH.

That are not bad figures for a 200 hp fixed gear airplane. The SR20 basically delivers a performance which is similar in terms of TAS to a vintage Mooney (E or F), slightly better than a AA5B Tiger and Piper Arrow, who all share the 200 hp engine. But of course in comparison to those it delivers this speed with a much nicer cabin and the CAPS, for which one has to pay with a bit of a higher fuel consumption and a much higher purchase price.

Yet, I am hestitant to discard the SR20 in favour of the SR22, which is what most people do whenever I see someone ask for advice on a SR20.

Obviously, Cirrus keeps the SR20 as an entry level model, something which other companies did not do and lost LOTS of customers over in recent years. AND that entry level model delivers the same comfort and safety features as the big brother, at a lower price.

Performancewise, one has to know what the plane can do and what it can’t.

The POH gives a maximum operating altitude of 17500 ft @ 2900 lb. That is pretty much a ballpark figure for 200 hp non turbocharged airplanes, incidently the same as my M20C with 180 hp and considerably higher than the 14000 ft advertized for the Tiger and the slightly less than the Mooney 201 (18000 ft) or Piper Arrow II/III, all of which however can reach their maximum altitudes at maximum gross weight, not that that is very realistic, as you burn of fuel to get there.

The POH however only gives tables up to 14000 ft, which is really a tad low for IFR in Europe. Alpine crossings are next to impossible with a max FL140. So it really depends if the SR20 can make it up to that max operating altitude or at least to FL160, otherwise even the lower alpine crossings will become a problem.

Looking at range, the POH gives some examples at various power settings. The range figures given include 10.1 USG as final reserve, which translates into 45 minutes IFR reserve at 75% and fuel for descent, includes a descent into final destination at 160 KIAS and -500fpm.

At 75% the POH gives an optimum range of 627 NM @ 155 kts @ 8000 ft and 11.6 GPH, translating into 12.8 NM/USG. (best power)
At 65% the POH gives an optimum range of 666 NM @ 150 kts @ 12000 ft and 10.5 GPH, tranlsating into 13.4 NM/USG (best power)
At 55% the POH gives an optimum range of 786 NM @ 144 kts @ 14000 ft and 8.4 GPH, tranlslating into 16.0 NM/USG (eco power)

In comparison, the SR22 returns 11 NM/USG at 75%, 11..7 NM/USG at 65% and 12.3 NM/USG at 55% with 180/175/170 kts respectively
So the SR20 is actually a quite efficient airplane vs the SR22. However, the range of the SR22 is larger due to the much larger fuel capacity

In Comparison with other 200/180 hp airplanes it does suffer, probably due to the fixed gear and the much larger cabin, but not decisivly so:
the M20C returns 14.6 NM/USG at 75%, 15.7 NM/USG at 65% and 17.2 NM/USG at 55% with 153/140/135 kts respectively.
the M20J returns 15.4 NM/USG at 75%, 16.2 NM/USG at 65% and 17.0 NM/USG at 55% with 165/155/142 kts respectively
The Arrow II returns 13.2 NM/USG at 75%, 14 NM/USG at 65% and 14.6 NM/USG at 55% with 145/142/133 kts respectively

In terms of range, the SR20 has quite good figures with its 56 USG tank with around 700-750 NM:

The M20C with 52 USG offers a maximum range of around 710 NM
The M20J with 64 USG offers a maximum range of around 900 NM
The Arrow II with 50 USG offers a maximum range of around 550 NM, the Arrow III with 77 USG will come close to 900 NM as well.
The SR22 with 89 USG offers a maximum range of approximately 1000 NM

Also in payload the SR20 is in the ballpark of most 200 hp airplanes.
According to the figures I found on the net an empty SR20 weighs around 965 kgs/ 2130 lb. With full fuel, that means there is space for around 250 kgs for pax and bags.
The competition offers mostly similarl values: A typical Mooney 201 has a full fuel payload of around 230-250 kg, my M20C currently has 260 kgs available with full fuel and the average Arrow II in my books has around 330 kgs full fuel payload, the III is around 300 kgs. So the Arrow wins this race, but looses most others.

I would think the SR20 does a pretty good job in it’s class of 200 hp airplanes with decent cruise speed of around 145-155 kts, 650-700 NM range, 14000-17000 ft service ceiling and a pretty typical payload for 200 hp travellers. Clearly it lags behind the SR22, which of course is also the idea. But that does not mean it is a “useless” airplane. Far from it. Whoever wants to travel in a modern airframe with CAPS and can not or does not want to afford an SR22, the SR20 is the next best thing. It will have similar restrictions in terms of IFR as comparable models but is pretty much in the ballpark with the other 200 hp offerings.

There was no FIKI SR22 in 2006, only normal TKS system.

I have a 2006 SR22. That year more than 800 were sold. The G2 is the best value at the moment, i would say.

Flying LOP in FL120 my SR22 delivers 170 KTAS at 13-13.5 GPH, that’s around 13 NM per Gallon. And i can essily fly it 150 KTAS with the SR20s fuel consumption.

Almost all SR22s are flown lean of peak in cruise.

There’s SR22 with 81 useable Gallons (g1-2) and others with 92 (g3-5)

I believe the FIKi Cirrus was launched autumn 2009.

Before that it was a “get out of dodge asap system”.

Mooney_Driver wrote:

14000-17000 ft service ceiling

Does anyone have any actual experience with taking a NA SR20, M20C/J or any comparable NA 200 hp airplane up to those altitudes? What are the climb rates typically observed above 12000 feet? How much fuel do you burn in the climb? How does ATC like those climb rates (IFR)?

At such altitudes (14-17000 feet), could you possibly be subject to a mountain wave during e.g. Alp crossing and how would you deal with that? I suppose your performance would force you to bite your teeth and ride it out?

People should also look into engine-prop-aux combinations. Some are known to cause double simultaneous mag failures on Cirruses.

LeSving wrote:

People should also look into engine-prop-aux combinations. Some are known to cause double simultaneous mag failures on Cirruses.

Could you elaborate please?

There’s other stuff missing from the SR-V as well – no second alternator, and no mechanical artificial horizon.

The linked aircraft has very low hours for its age and looks like new, but it certainly has its limitations.