The heavy-hauling Cessna 182 Skylane against the lighter, more modern Cirrus SR20, a trade between useful load and technology.
The near match on price and several performance rows makes this a mission test rather than a value contest. The 182 carries the load farther and operates from less runway, so it is the stronger family or utility aeroplane even though its cockpit feels conventional. The SR20 is quicker, brings CAPS and modern Cirrus training, and suits lighter trips where passengers value the safety architecture more than baggage margin. Do not count seats. Put the real people, bags and fuel into a loading calculation and add the home-field runway; if those fit the SR20, technology can decide, but if they do not, no avionics package replaces the Skylane's capacity.
The table below uses the same versioned PlaneFit dataset as the Finder. Prices and operating costs are planning estimates, not quotations.
| Decision factor | Cessna 182T SkylaneView aircraft profile | Cirrus SR20 G7+View aircraft profile |
|---|---|---|
| Typical market year | 2023 | 2026 |
| Estimated purchase | €580k | €600k |
| Annual cash cost at 80 h | €43k | €50k |
| Five-year cash outlay | €797k | €852k |
| Cruise speed | 145 kt | 155 kt |
| Advertised range | 915 nm | 709 nm |
| Seats | 4 | 5 |
| Realistic payload | 365 kg | 342 kg |
| Runway need | 461 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 | A strong real-world four-seat traveller, but fuel burn and nose-heavy handling demand more budget and discipline than a 172. | 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 182T Skylane 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 182T Skylane | Cirrus SR20 G7+ | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| 40 h / year | $811k (€751k) | $870k (€806k) | $59k (€55k) to Cessna 182T Skylane |
| 100 h / year | $886k (€820k) | $945k (€875k) | $59k (€55k) to Cessna 182T Skylane |
| 200 h / year | $1.01m (€935k) | $1.07m (€990k) | $59k (€55k) to Cessna 182T Skylane |
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 613 nm from the Cessna 182T Skylane 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 182T Skylane has enough runway at 27,184 of them and the Cirrus SR20 G7+ at 26,429, comparing each aircraft’s take-off requirement of 1,512 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 high-performance touring and utility aircraft. Its central ownership trade-off is: A strong real-world four-seat traveller, but fuel burn and nose-heavy handling demand more budget and discipline than a 172.
Planning snapshot: $626k (€580k) indicative price and $47k (€43k) 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