The Cessna 206 Stationair against the Cirrus SR22: one carries people and equipment into demanding strips, the other covers distance fast.
The payload row is the one to distrust. On these numbers the 206 and the SR22 are close enough on load and on take-off distance that the truck-against-tourer framing does not survive the table, and the SR22 is quicker and longer legged besides. What the 206 offers is shape rather than mass: a cabin that swallows awkward objects, doors wide enough to load them through, fixed gear that tolerates rough surfaces, and floats or skis when the mission asks. None of that shows up as payload. If the load is people and bags, the SR22 does it faster. If it is a stretcher, a camera mount, a dog crate or drums of anything at all, the 206 is not competing on the same axis.
The table below uses the same versioned PlaneFit dataset as the Finder. Prices and operating costs are planning estimates, not quotations.
| Decision factor | Cessna 206H StationairView aircraft profile | Cirrus SR22 G7+View aircraft profile |
|---|---|---|
| Typical market year | 2008 | 2026 |
| Estimated purchase | €523k | €814k |
| Annual cash cost at 80 h | €53k | €67k |
| Five-year cash outlay | €787k | €1.15m |
| Cruise speed | 142 kt | 183 kt |
| Advertised range | 730 nm | 1169 nm |
| Seats | 6 | 5 |
| Realistic payload | 457 kg | 448 kg |
| Runway need | 570 m | 569 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 | Excellent doors, cabin and payload, but fuel burn and high acquisition prices reduce private-use economics. | Fast, capable and highly marketable, but acquisition cost, CAPS calendar events and insurance are substantial. |
A factual first pass. Mission, condition and configuration can outweigh a brochure advantage.
They do not cross. The Cessna 206H Stationair 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 206H Stationair | Cirrus SR22 G7+ | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| 40 h / year | $801k (€742k) | $1.17m (€1.08m) | $367k (€340k) to Cessna 206H Stationair |
| 100 h / year | $874k (€810k) | $1.28m (€1.18m) | $404k (€375k) to Cessna 206H Stationair |
| 200 h / year | $996k (€922k) | $1.46m (€1.35m) | $467k (€432k) to Cessna 206H Stationair |
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 489 nm from the Cessna 206H Stationair against 783 nm from the Cirrus SR22 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 206H Stationair has enough runway at 25,402 of them and the Cirrus SR22 G7+ at 25,403, comparing each aircraft’s take-off requirement of 1,870 ft and 1,867 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.
Six-seat fixed-gear utility and touring aircraft. Its central ownership trade-off is: Excellent doors, cabin and payload, but fuel burn and high acquisition prices reduce private-use economics.
Planning snapshot: $565k (€523k) indicative price and $57k (€53k) annual cash cost at 80 hours.
Read the full aircraft profileFive-seat high-performance personal transport. Its central ownership trade-off is: Fast, capable and highly marketable, but acquisition cost, CAPS calendar events and insurance are substantial.
Planning snapshot: $879k (€814k) indicative price and $73k (€67k) annual cash cost at 80 hours.
Read the full aircraft profile