# Cirrus SR20 vs Cessna 172S Skyhawk SP

Page: https://www.aerscheduler.com/aircraft/compare/cirrus-sr20-vs-cessna-172s
Guides: https://www.aerscheduler.com/aircraft/cirrus-sr20, https://www.aerscheduler.com/aircraft/cessna-172s

## Where they differ

- The Cirrus SR20 fleet is younger: half of those registered were built by 2018, against 2009 for the Cessna 172S.
- There are more Cessna 172Ss to choose from: 3,069 registered against 1,547.
- Most Cirrus SR20s have the Lycoming IO-390; most Cessna 172Ss the Lycoming IO-360.
- The Cirrus SR20 burns more fuel in a typical cruise: about 11 gallons an hour against 9.
- The Cessna 172S carries more airframe ADs with a repeat action, 5 against 3: inspections that come back for as long as the AD applies.
- Mechanics report the Cirrus SR20's dc generator-alternator most, and the Cessna 172S's reciprocating engine cylinder section.

## Side by side

| | Cirrus SR20 | Cessna 172S Skyhawk SP |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Registered in the US | 1,547 | 3,069 |
| Built | 2000 to 2026 | 1998 to 2026 |
| Half built by | 2018 | 2009 |
| Seats | 4 | 4 |
| Most common engine | Lycoming IO-390 | Lycoming IO-360 |
| Typical cruise fuel burn | 11 gal/hr | 9 gal/hr |
| Engine overhaul interval | Not set | 2,000 hr |
| Current airframe ADs | 11 | 39 |
| Airframe ADs with a repeat action | 3 | 5 |
| Current ADs on the main engine | 4 | 29 |
| Service Difficulty Reports | 64 (41.4 per 1,000) | 383 (124.8 per 1,000) |
| Most-reported system | DC Generator-Alternator | Reciprocating Engine Cylinder Section |
| Accidents since 2008 | 118 (76.3 per 1,000) | 255 (83.1 per 1,000) |
| Fatal accidents since 2008 | 35 | 32 |
| Most common accident | Loss of control in flight | Hard landing |

Report and accident counts are not rates: the hours each model flies are not published. Sources: the FAA aircraft registry, Airworthiness Directives and Service Difficulty Reports, and the NTSB aviation accident database.