The experimental RV-10 against the certified Cirrus SR22, a decision about building, maintenance freedom and how easily each one resells.
The RV-10 offers extraordinary speed, runway access and ownership value, but there is no generic RV-10 to buy. Builder workmanship, modifications, documentation and maintenance history make each airframe its own model, and resale depends on how convincingly those choices were executed. The SR22 costs more because it turns that variability into a certified support, training and resale ecosystem, and CAPS adds a safety argument the experimental cannot match. A technically engaged owner with an expert pre-buy can exploit the Van's freedom. An owner who needs predictable dispatch, broad service and a straightforward exit should pay for the Cirrus system.
The table below uses the same versioned PlaneFit dataset as the Finder. Prices and operating costs are planning estimates, not quotations.
Choose the RV-10 when hands-on stewardship, experimental-category flexibility and performance value are part of the reason to own, and only after an RV specialist has examined build quality, documentation and modifications. The individual builder's work is part of the aircraft specification.
Choose the SR22 when certified support, standardised training, CAPS and a more legible resale market are essential. It costs more to turn airframe variability into a known product and service ecosystem, which is valuable for an owner who needs predictable availability and a straightforward exit.
Neither is suitable for a buyer unwilling to remain proficient in a high-performance travelling single. If recurrent training, careful weather decisions and active aircraft stewardship are not realistic, a slower and simpler certified single is the safer ownership brief.
No generic RV-10 can represent every amateur-built aircraft. PlaneFit compares a reference record; workmanship, systems, operating limitations and maintenance privileges vary, while every SR22 also needs its own records and equipment review.
| Decision factor | Van's Aircraft RV-10View aircraft profile | Cirrus SR22 G7+View aircraft profile |
|---|---|---|
| Typical market year | 2020 | 2026 |
| Estimated purchase | €300k | €814k |
| Annual cash cost at 80 h | €28k | €67k |
| Five-year cash outlay | €442k | €1.15m |
| Cruise speed | 170 kt | 183 kt |
| Advertised range | 1000 nm | 1169 nm |
| Seats | 4 | 5 |
| Realistic payload | 346 kg | 448 kg |
| Runway need | 360 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 speed, payload and cabin value, but build quality, documentation and resale vary aircraft by aircraft. | 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 Van's Aircraft RV-10 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 | Van's Aircraft RV-10 | Cirrus SR22 G7+ | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| 40 h / year | $444k (€411k) | $1.17m (€1.08m) | $725k (€671k) to Van's Aircraft RV-10 |
| 100 h / year | $494k (€458k) | $1.28m (€1.18m) | $785k (€727k) to Van's Aircraft RV-10 |
| 200 h / year | $578k (€535k) | $1.46m (€1.35m) | $885k (€819k) to Van's Aircraft RV-10 |
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 Van's Aircraft RV-10 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 Van's Aircraft RV-10 has enough runway at 28,479 of them and the Cirrus SR22 G7+ at 25,403, comparing each aircraft’s take-off requirement of 1,181 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.