The fast Cirrus SR22 against the load-hauling Cessna 182 Skylane, two very different answers to the family cross-country brief.
The SR22 is the better airport-to-airport traveller: it shortens long sectors, reaches farther and brings CAPS and a highly standardised training ecosystem. The 182 is the better machine when the trip begins with a short runway, a bulky load or a destination where fixed gear and simple access are virtues. Its cabin can do family work without pretending to be fast, and its lower ownership burden remains valuable on every local flight. If most journeys are long and paved at both ends, buy the Cirrus capability. If the schedule is flexible but the load or runway is not, the Skylane is more useful than the speed row admits.
The table below uses the same versioned PlaneFit dataset as the Finder. Prices and operating costs are planning estimates, not quotations.
Choose the SR22 when repeated paved-airport trips reward speed, integrated avionics and the CAPS whole-airframe parachute, and when the owner will complete the transition and recurrent training the platform expects. Its premium needs a transport mission that uses those capabilities.
Choose the 182 when useful load, cabin practicality, short-field margins and broad maintenance familiarity matter more than cruise speed. It is the stronger answer for mixed utility flying, flexible schedules and destinations where a simple fixed-gear airframe is an advantage.
Neither is a substitute for an all-weather transport aircraft. Missions that require reliable dispatch through icing, convective weather or conditions beyond the pilot's proficiency should be rescheduled, flown commercially or assigned to an appropriately equipped and operated aircraft.
CAPS, avionics and runway figures do not make a safety ranking. Equipment, pilot training, weather, loading and the condition of one airframe dominate the real decision and require document review and a model-specific pre-buy.
| Decision factor | Cirrus SR22 G7+View aircraft profile | Cessna 182T SkylaneView aircraft profile |
|---|---|---|
| Typical market year | 2026 | 2023 |
| Estimated purchase | €814k | €580k |
| Annual cash cost at 80 h | €67k | €43k |
| Five-year cash outlay | €1.15m | €797k |
| Cruise speed | 183 kt | 145 kt |
| Advertised range | 1169 nm | 915 nm |
| Seats | 5 | 4 |
| Realistic payload | 448 kg | 365 kg |
| Runway need | 569 m | 461 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 | Fast, capable and highly marketable, but acquisition cost, CAPS calendar events and insurance are substantial. | A strong real-world four-seat traveller, but fuel burn and nose-heavy handling demand more budget and discipline than a 172. |
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 | Cirrus SR22 G7+ | Cessna 182T Skylane | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| 40 h / year | $1.17m (€1.08m) | $811k (€751k) | $357k (€331k) to Cessna 182T Skylane |
| 100 h / year | $1.28m (€1.18m) | $886k (€820k) | $393k (€364k) to Cessna 182T Skylane |
| 200 h / year | $1.46m (€1.35m) | $1.01m (€935k) | $453k (€419k) 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 783 nm from the Cirrus SR22 G7+ against 613 nm from the Cessna 182T Skylane. 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 Cirrus SR22 G7+ has enough runway at 25,403 of them and the Cessna 182T Skylane at 27,184, comparing each aircraft’s take-off requirement of 1,867 ft and 1,512 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.