The frugal Mooney M20J 201 against the Cirrus SR22, a trade of fuel economy for cabin space, comfort and a whole-airframe parachute.
The M20J has a reputation for cheapness and only half of it holds. The acquisition gap is enormous; the annual gap is not, because an airframe of that age attracts maintenance that aerodynamic efficiency does not offset. The saving is in the buying rather than the keeping, and what it buys is a genuinely fast aeroplane on genuinely little fuel. What it costs is space, entry and everything modern about the SR22, including CAPS and avionics nobody has to explain to you second hand. The Mooney suits a two-up traveller who values speed per litre and can live with a snug cabin. Fly with family aboard and most owners stop enjoying it well before the money argument runs out.
The table below uses the same versioned PlaneFit dataset as the Finder. Prices and operating costs are planning estimates, not quotations.
| Decision factor | Mooney M20J 201View aircraft profile | Cirrus SR22 G7+View aircraft profile |
|---|---|---|
| Typical market year | 1985 | 2026 |
| Estimated purchase | €113k | €814k |
| Annual cash cost at 80 h | €65k | €67k |
| Five-year cash outlay | €438k | €1.15m |
| Cruise speed | 155 kt | 183 kt |
| Advertised range | 1000 nm | 1169 nm |
| Seats | 4 | 5 |
| Realistic payload | 338 kg | 448 kg |
| Runway need | 500 m | 569 m |
| Landing gear | Retractable tricycle | Fixed tricycle |
| Ratings and endorsements | Complex airplane endorsement | None beyond the certificate |
| Data confidence | Normalized for direct comparison | Normalized for direct comparison |
| Main trade-off | Outstanding efficiency and speed, but cabin access, useful load and ageing gear or fuel-tank issues need attention. | 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 Mooney M20J 201 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 | Mooney M20J 201 | Cirrus SR22 G7+ | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| 40 h / year | $438k (€406k) | $1.17m (€1.08m) | $731k (€677k) to Mooney M20J 201 |
| 100 h / year | $490k (€454k) | $1.28m (€1.18m) | $789k (€731k) to Mooney M20J 201 |
| 200 h / year | $576k (€534k) | $1.46m (€1.35m) | $886k (€821k) to Mooney M20J 201 |
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 670 nm from the Mooney M20J 201 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 Mooney M20J 201 has enough runway at 26,739 of them and the Cirrus SR22 G7+ at 25,403, comparing each aircraft’s take-off requirement of 1,640 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.
The Mooney M20J 201 requires a complex airplane endorsement that the Cirrus SR22 G7+ does not. That is training time and instructor cost before the first trip, and insurers normally attach minimum-hours conditions to the same requirement, which is where it shows up again in the running cost. US requirements under 14 CFR 61.31, stated for orientation rather than as advice.
Four-seat efficient retractable-gear tourer. Its central ownership trade-off is: Outstanding efficiency and speed, but cabin access, useful load and ageing gear or fuel-tank issues need attention.
Planning snapshot: $122k (€113k) indicative price and $70k (€65k) 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