P2008 vs SR 22

[ChiMike]

I had the opportunity to take a lunch flight this weekend in a SR22 G6. I’ve flown in SR-22’s before and they are definitely nice! First, it is a beautiful and high performance airplane that can do all the things our P2008 planes cannot do: fly faster, carry 4 people, fly in conditions of IFC and known icing. And it is certainly more stable and heavier. BUT—unless your mission is for 4 pax, significant weather operations, etc., is it really worth 30 gallons plus an hour for 40 ktas more in airspeed?

The SR22 is certainly not a Cessna. It is comfortable, great avionics, a bit roomier compared to a Cessna or especially a Mooney. It’s luxurious. And it has presence at any airport! They are beautiful.

But, that said—and we are talking $250k vs $900k, what is the value proposition unless you HAVE to carry more than two folks on a routine basis or have all-weather capability? Unless you do, I’ll say not a lot.

First, outside of stability due to the higher weight, a low wing is not that comfortable for loading, entry, or exit compared to the P2008. I personally don’t like getting into or out of any low wing—SR 22 or our own Astore. Once inside, compared to any other LSA, the interior of the P2008 is luxurious. No bare bones open wires and cables and structure that are common on most other LSA or even legacy GA airplanes. A lot of leather and interior plushness compared to the Cirrus? No. But compared to any other GA or LSA, the P2008 is a nice aesthetic experience. $650k more in price and a much higher MTOW will buy some pretty! Verdict—ease of entry to the P2008; luxury leathers to the Cirrus.

Once you’re in and seated, it’s a little tight. The cockpit is shaped like a gentle ‘V’ and wraps around you as opposed to the flat across P2008 design. Depending on seat position to reach the rudder pedals it’s not a lot more room than a Cessna 172. Comfortable, but you’re shoulder to shoulder and twisting to open room for the console controls. Verdict on room? I’ll give the P2008 the nod for the front row. The Cirrus for the back row!

Avionics are very similar to the G3X. The Garmin for Cirrus is different-but all the needed info is there for both planes. I like the bigger font on the Cirrus screens and give my verdict to the Cirrus system for that reason alone.

Performance-lets keep it under 11,000 feet. Yes the Cirrus has an O2 system. But how often do even Cirrus pilots go there? So at under 11k msl, speed is certainly in the capability of the SR 22, and we are talking a cruise of 165 to 185 ktas; but the fuel consumption is 30 to 45 gallons an hour. Overall cost of flying verdict? The P2008. If getting point a to point b with two people on a 300 mile flight, yes the SR 22 will win hands down by an hour, but the fuel cost is five times or more what it costs the P2008.

Flying experience. Both are nice cross country cars. Neither is an aerobatics or special use airplane. Both are reliable and have good reputations with their owners. Clearly a $250 vs $900 airplane is apples to cantaloupe. They both get the job done. And as stated earlier the cruise performance and load capabilities are vastly different. For aesthetics, they are both the best looking airplanes in their respective classes. For performance the P2008 is flat out the best performing and most luxurious certified LSA available at any price. And the P2008 is the most expensive plane in its class. The same can be said for the SR22. We’re lucky we can fly or afford either. So it again comes down to mission. If I had a mission that required the Cirrus capabilities, I’m going there. But for (relatively) luxurious performance in a day-night VFR environment, I think the P2008 with the 914 engine and BRS system is the better value.

What do the rest of you think?

[ATP Time Builders]

Apples to Oranges...but nice to think about

Better compared to P2010. I would take the P-2010 with new engine just over cost alone. And not Made in China. Half the money too. Slightly less useful load.

But really, the best comparison for the dollar would be the P2006T. Still less money and that extra engine is wonderful if you like to do a lot of flying at night, IMC etc. Operating cost is less than either the P2010 or SR22.

P2006T is slower but you will arrive in real style! It is a classy plane to take on a trip if you are ME and IFR. If you have enough money to buy a SR22, P2006T is the better deal.

[grantopperman]

Feb 24, 2020 20:14:48 GMT ChiMike said:

I had the opportunity to take a lunch flight this weekend in a SR22 G6. I’ve flown in SR-22’s before and they are definitely nice! First, it is a beautiful and high performance airplane that can do all the things our P2008 planes cannot do: fly faster, carry 4 people, fly in conditions of IFC and known icing. And it is certainly more stable and heavier. BUT—unless your mission is for 4 pax, significant weather operations, etc., is it really worth 30 gallons plus an hour for 40 ktas more in airspeed?

The SR22 is certainly not a Cessna. It is comfortable, great avionics, a bit roomier compared to a Cessna or especially a Mooney. It’s luxurious. And it has presence at any airport! They are beautiful.

But, that said—and we are talking $250k vs $900k, what is the value proposition unless you HAVE to carry more than two folks on a routine basis or have all-weather capability? Unless you do, I’ll say not a lot.

First, outside of stability due to the higher weight, a low wing is not that comfortable for loading, entry, or exit compared to the P2008. I personally don’t like getting into or out of any low wing—SR 22 or our own Astore. Once inside, compared to any other LSA, the interior of the P2008 is luxurious. No bare bones open wires and cables and structure that are common on most other LSA or even legacy GA airplanes. A lot of leather and interior plushness compared to the Cirrus? No. But compared to any other GA or LSA, the P2008 is a nice aesthetic experience. $650k more in price and a much higher MTOW will buy some pretty! Verdict—ease of entry to the P2008; luxury leathers to the Cirrus.

Once you’re in and seated, it’s a little tight. The cockpit is shaped like a gentle ‘V’ and wraps around you as opposed to the flat across P2008 design. Depending on seat position to reach the rudder pedals it’s not a lot more room than a Cessna 172. Comfortable, but you’re shoulder to shoulder and twisting to open room for the console controls. Verdict on room? I’ll give the P2008 the nod for the front row. The Cirrus for the back row!

Avionics are very similar to the G3X. The Garmin for Cirrus is different-but all the needed info is there for both planes. I like the bigger font on the Cirrus screens and give my verdict to the Cirrus system for that reason alone.

Performance-lets keep it under 11,000 feet. Yes the Cirrus has an O2 system. But how often do even Cirrus pilots go there? So at under 11k msl, speed is certainly in the capability of the SR 22, and we are talking a cruise of 165 to 185 ktas; but the fuel consumption is 30 to 45 gallons an hour. Overall cost of flying verdict? The P2008. If getting point a to point b with two people on a 300 mile flight, yes the SR 22 will win hands down by an hour, but the fuel cost is five times or more what it costs the P2008.

Flying experience. Both are nice cross country cars. Neither is an aerobatics or special use airplane. Both are reliable and have good reputations with their owners. Clearly a $250 vs $900 airplane is apples to cantaloupe. They both get the job done. And as stated earlier the cruise performance and load capabilities are vastly different. For aesthetics, they are both the best looking airplanes in their respective classes. For performance the P2008 is flat out the best performing and most luxurious certified LSA available at any price. And the P2008 is the most expensive plane in its class. The same can be said for the SR22. We’re lucky we can fly or afford either. So it again comes down to mission. If I had a mission that required the Cirrus capabilities, I’m going there. But for (relatively) luxurious performance in a day-night VFR environment, I think the P2008 with the 914 engine and BRS system is the better value.

What do the rest of you think?

Chimike: you may want to double check fuel flow. I owned four Cirruses: a 2007 22 turbonormalized, a 2010 22 ‘T’ turbo, a 2012 normally aspirated 22 and a 2014 Sr20. The flows I got:

22 T and TN: about 16 gph normal cruise
22 NA: about 12-14 Gph normal cruise
20: I think it was around 9 gph (fuzzy memory)

You are burning way more on climb out, more like what you describe. But once you lean for cruise (lean of peak in Cirrus!) it’s way less.

For me, the big differences were acquisition cost and maintenance. At a certain point it didn’t make sense for the flying I did to have that much cash sitting in the hangar. And $7k annuals were very normal on those planes.

These days I am fine with 2 people going 120, though my experimental LSA P2008 is approved for IFR / IMC!

[cole505]

Hi Chimike,

Very nice! I enjoyed your I input on the Sr22 very informative....... maybe Mark Gregor could make a few inputs also since he owns one. I did like the comparison SR22 VS P-2008 some very
Nice comparisons..........

Ray & Lucy ✅✈️🇺🇸🇺🇸😊👍🏻👌

[cole505]

Hi Barry,

I also liked yours as well! Short and to the point. And I especially liked the part about the P-2006T very nice comparison as well.

Ray & Lucy ✅😎😊👍🏻👍🏻🇺🇸

[cole505]

Hi Barry,

I also liked yours as well! Short and to the point. And I especially liked the part about the P-2006T very nice comparison as well.

Ray & Lucy ✅😎😊👍🏻👍🏻🇺🇸

[mackattack]

Just a quick note from a former Astore and Cirrus SR22TN owner. I loved my Astore but this is really an apples to oranges comparison. These are very different aircraft for very different missions. I moved from my Astore to a Cirrus because I wanted to fly longer missions in IMC. If all you do is fly daytime VFR cross-country trips of 400 nm or less by yourself or with one other person, the Tecnams are a terrific value because of the build quality, interior quality, economy, great avionics, all the reasons we love them.

But I decided that my aviation pathway required me to fly in IMC, at night and distances of 800-1100 nm routinely and I’m just not gonna do that in any LSA even a Tecnam. There were too many days when I couldn’t go on a trip because there was a cloud layer that prevented me from making the trip but going IFR would allow me to punch through and go. Once you get to 500 nm or more on a mission, the SR22 goes about 40-50% faster than the Tecnams. On that 500-nm flight, you arrive more than an hour earlier in a Cirrus. I routinely flew my Cirrus above 10,000’ up to 17,500 on many occasions and you get a lot of speed up there plus the chance to take advantage of west-to-east tailwinds. And you can fly down low headed west without much of a fuel penalty and still pick up a lot of time vs. an LSA. Stability in turbulence and crosswinds is also a significant consideration. The wing loading on the Cirrus is significantly higher than the LSAs - which means it handles the bumps much better and you get significantly better crosswind performance (and associated safety). Plus you can get known ice capability in a Cirrus - that’s a big “get out of jail free” card that’s actually more relevant than the chute in most circumstances.

While you can go IMC in an E-LSA version, you still have the same aerodynamic limitations. In short, the dispatch rate on a Cirrus for cross-country missions is significantly higher than the dispatch rate on any LSA, even an E-LSA with IFR capabilities (which is in turn better than an an SLSA).

I flew my Astore all over the country (at least east of the Rockies). But once I got my instrument rating I flew my Cirrus just the same and saved a lot of time. With respect to fuel consumption, consider this. If it takes you 75 gallons of fuel and 5 hours (including time to climb and descent) to fly 800 nm (nonstop) in a Cirrus SR22 (my mission from Houston to visit my mother outside of Charlotte), that costs me 375-400 in fuel. In my Astore, that trip requires a stop and takes at least 7 hours (excluding stop ground time but including time to climb and descend, twice), that would have cost me 200-250 in fuel. Cheaper than the Cirrus but considering the time savings, not to mention stress and increased risk associated with another stop, to make it worthwhile for me. Your mileage may vary..

Speed definitely comes at a price and that price is non-linear. As the OP noted, to get a new SR22 you are going to spend more than 3x the cost vs a new Cirrus (although you can get a used SR 22 for not much more than a new P2008 - mine was a 2007 model). G2-G3 SR22s routinely sell for 250-350k on Controller. Fuel costs more, and maintenance costs more, especially with the turbocharged Continentals. But you really can’t compare an SR22 with an LSA because they are just built for different missions. if your mission is an LSA mission - a Cirrus definitely isn’t worth the money. But if your mission warrants a plane with that speed and capability, it’s definitely worth it.

But please don’t listen to me - “airplane acquisition syndrome” - which is the name of my chronic condition - is very expensive. Because I sold my Cirrus a year ago and became a 50/50 partner in a Piper M600 turboprop. I picked up another 90-100 knots in speed and now fly routinely at FL270-280. My dispatch rate in the turbine is very close to 100%; I only cancel when there is widespread fog/low IFR ceilings or widespread convection at either the departure or destination airport, which is very seldom. I can go from Houston to either coast nonstop, even westbound into winter winds, in pressurized comfort with a whiz-bang Garmin G3000 doing most of the driving and trading turbulence ride reports with other pilots in Boeings and Airbuses. Lots of fun in a different way ... but if you think moving to a Cirrus costs money, don’t even ask about the cost of moving to a turbine!!!  That next 90 knots costs a TON.  In any event, I really missed flying with a stick so did a factory build assist on a Carbon Cub FX3 to keep my stick and rudder flying sharp and I fly that thing in daytime VFR low and slow off of a grass strip. Best of both worlds!  And ... as expensive as these planes all were, they were cheaper than my ex-wives, and way better therapy!! *laughing*

I loved my Astore - both Tecnams are great planes; and I have flown the 2008 and think its awesome too. But like all of aviation, this is all mission-driven. If you have a short range, daytime VFR mission, you really can’t go wrong in any of the Tecnam LSAs. But that’s not the mission that the Cirrus is all about.

Cheers!

[grantopperman]

Mar 1, 2020 0:05:41 GMT mackattack said:

Just a quick note from a former Astore and Cirrus SR22TN owner. I loved my Astore but this is really an apples to oranges comparison. These are very different aircraft for very different missions. I moved from my Astore to a Cirrus because I wanted to fly longer missions in IMC. If all you do is fly daytime VFR cross-country trips of 400 nm or less by yourself or with one other person, the Tecnams are a terrific value because of the build quality, interior quality, economy, great avionics, all the reasons we love them.

But I decided that my aviation pathway required me to fly in IMC, at night and distances of 800-1100 nm routinely and I’m just not gonna do that in any LSA even a Tecnam. There were too many days when I couldn’t go on a trip because there was a cloud layer that prevented me from making the trip but going IFR would allow me to punch through and go. Once you get to 500 nm or more on a mission, the SR22 goes about 40-50% faster than the Tecnams. On that 500-nm flight, you arrive more than an hour earlier in a Cirrus. I routinely flew my Cirrus above 10,000’ up to 17,500 on many occasions and you get a lot of speed up there plus the chance to take advantage of west-to-east tailwinds. And you can fly down low headed west without much of a fuel penalty and still pick up a lot of time vs. an LSA. Stability in turbulence and crosswinds is also a significant consideration. The wing loading on the Cirrus is significantly higher than the LSAs - which means it handles the bumps much better and you get significantly better crosswind performance (and associated safety). Plus you can get known ice capability in a Cirrus - that’s a big “get out of jail free” card that’s actually more relevant than the chute in most circumstances.

While you can go IMC in an E-LSA version, you still have the same aerodynamic limitations. In short, the dispatch rate on a Cirrus for cross-country missions is significantly higher than the dispatch rate on any LSA, even an E-LSA with IFR capabilities (which is in turn better than an an SLSA).

I flew my Astore all over the country (at least east of the Rockies). But once I got my instrument rating I flew my Cirrus just the same and saved a lot of time. With respect to fuel consumption, consider this. If it takes you 75 gallons of fuel and 5 hours (including time to climb and descent) to fly 800 nm (nonstop) in a Cirrus SR22 (my mission from Houston to visit my mother outside of Charlotte), that costs me 375-400 in fuel. In my Astore, that trip requires a stop and takes at least 7 hours (excluding stop ground time but including time to climb and descend, twice), that would have cost me 200-250 in fuel. Cheaper than the Cirrus but considering the time savings, not to mention stress and increased risk associated with another stop, to make it worthwhile for me. Your mileage may vary..

Speed definitely comes at a price and that price is non-linear. As the OP noted, to get a new SR22 you are going to spend more than 3x the cost vs a new Cirrus (although you can get a used SR 22 for not much more than a new P2008 - mine was a 2007 model). G2-G3 SR22s routinely sell for 250-350k on Controller. Fuel costs more, and maintenance costs more, especially with the turbocharged Continentals. But you really can’t compare an SR22 with an LSA because they are just built for different missions. if your mission is an LSA mission - a Cirrus definitely isn’t worth the money. But if your mission warrants a plane with that speed and capability, it’s definitely worth it.

But please don’t listen to me - “airplane acquisition syndrome” - which is the name of my chronic condition - is very expensive. Because I sold my Cirrus a year ago and became a 50/50 partner in a Piper M600 turboprop. I picked up another 90-100 knots in speed and now fly routinely at FL270-280. My dispatch rate in the turbine is very close to 100%; I only cancel when there is widespread fog/low IFR ceilings or widespread convection at either the departure or destination airport, which is very seldom. I can go from Houston to either coast nonstop, even westbound into winter winds, in pressurized comfort with a whiz-bang Garmin G3000 doing most of the driving and trading turbulence ride reports with other pilots in Boeings and Airbuses. Lots of fun in a different way ... but if you think moving to a Cirrus costs money, don’t even ask about the cost of moving to a turbine!!!  That next 90 knots costs a TON.  In any event, I really missed flying with a stick so did a factory build assist on a Carbon Cub FX3 to keep my stick and rudder flying sharp and I fly that thing in daytime VFR low and slow off of a grass strip. Best of both worlds!  And ... as expensive as these planes all were, they were cheaper than my ex-wives, and way better therapy!! *laughing*

I loved my Astore - both Tecnams are great planes; and I have flown the 2008 and think its awesome too. But like all of aviation, this is all mission-driven. If you have a short range, daytime VFR mission, you really can’t go wrong in any of the Tecnam LSAs. But that’s not the mission that the Cirrus is all about.

Cheers!

Word, Mackattack! This is a great post and I couldn’t agree more that the mission defines the machine.