The Cessna 172 Skyhawk against the Cirrus SR20, a proven simple trainer against modern glass and a whole-airframe parachute.
This one splits evenly and the split is honest: the 172 is cheaper to buy and cheaper to keep, the SR20 is quicker, goes further and carries more. Neither list wins on its own. The question underneath is what the aeroplane is for. For learning, building hours and flying locally, the 172 wins on economics felt every month and on a support network with no equal anywhere in aviation. For getting yourself somewhere on a schedule, the SR20 speed and range begin to earn the premium, and CAPS changes the risk conversation for anyone flying at night or over ground with nowhere to put it down. Do not buy the parachute if you never fly far enough to need it.
The table below uses the same versioned PlaneFit dataset as the Finder. Prices and operating costs are planning estimates, not quotations.
| Decision factor | Cessna 172S Skyhawk SPView aircraft profile | Cirrus SR20 G7+View aircraft profile |
|---|---|---|
| Typical market year | 2019 | 2026 |
| Estimated purchase | €497k | €600k |
| Annual cash cost at 80 h | €32k | €50k |
| Five-year cash outlay | €655k | €852k |
| Cruise speed | 124 kt | 155 kt |
| Advertised range | 640 nm | 709 nm |
| Seats | 4 | 5 |
| Realistic payload | 301 kg | 342 kg |
| Runway need | 497 m | 514 m |
| Landing gear | Fixed tricycle | Fixed tricycle |
| Ratings and endorsements | None beyond the certificate | None beyond the certificate |
| Data confidence | Normalized for direct comparison | Normalized for direct comparison |
| Main trade-off | Exceptionally easy to support and resell, but four adults with bags and meaningful fuel are usually unrealistic. | Modern, safe and easy to operate, but cabin payload falls quickly with five occupants and ownership costs exceed conventional trainers. |
A factual first pass. Mission, condition and configuration can outweigh a brochure advantage.
They do not cross. The Cessna 172S Skyhawk SP is the cheaper of the two at every utilisation from zero to 300 hours a year, on purchase and running cost together, so there is no break-even point to find. That is worth knowing plainly: on cost alone this is not a trade-off, and the case for the other aircraft has to be made on mission, cabin, speed or access rather than on eventual savings.
| Five-year cash, including purchase | Cessna 172S Skyhawk SP | Cirrus SR20 G7+ | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| 40 h / year | $671k (€621k) | $870k (€806k) | $200k (€185k) to Cessna 172S Skyhawk SP |
| 100 h / year | $726k (€672k) | $945k (€875k) | $219k (€203k) to Cessna 172S Skyhawk SP |
| 200 h / year | $818k (€757k) | $1.07m (€990k) | $252k (€233k) to Cessna 172S Skyhawk SP |
The gap widens as utilisation rises, which is the part a headline price comparison hides. Every figure uses the same planning model as the rest of the site: indicative market prices, a fixed annual base and a direct hourly cost, before financing, depreciation and tax.
Advertised range is a still-air, best-case number. With 4 people aboard and realistic reserves, plan on about 429 nm from the Cessna 172S Skyhawk SP against 475 nm from the Cirrus SR20 G7+. On a return trip without refuelling, that is the radius that decides which destinations are on the list at all.
Against the 28,815 airports in the PlaneFit database that publish a runway length, the Cessna 172S Skyhawk SP has enough runway at 26,749 of them and the Cirrus SR20 G7+ at 26,429, comparing each aircraft’s take-off requirement of 1,631 ft and 1,686 ft against the longest runway on the field.
This is a planning comparison, not a statement that any particular operation is legal or advisable. It ignores surface, slope, elevation, temperature, obstacles and how heavily the aircraft is loaded, all of which extend the requirement. It also compares take-off distance only: landing distance is frequently the binding constraint and PlaneFit does not hold approved landing distances, so a field in these counts is not necessarily a field you can get back out of, or into.
Nothing separates them here. Neither carries an endorsement or rating requirement of its own beyond a pilot certificate for the category and class.
Four-seat training and personal touring aircraft. Its central ownership trade-off is: Exceptionally easy to support and resell, but four adults with bags and meaningful fuel are usually unrealistic.
Planning snapshot: $537k (€497k) indicative price and $34k (€32k) annual cash cost at 80 hours.
Read the full aircraft profileFive-seat modern trainer and personal touring aircraft. Its central ownership trade-off is: Modern, safe and easy to operate, but cabin payload falls quickly with five occupants and ownership costs exceed conventional trainers.
Planning snapshot: $648k (€600k) indicative price and $54k (€50k) annual cash cost at 80 hours.
Read the full aircraft profile