But one of the factors cited is that a significant portion of the SR20s out there are in training fleets with their high levels of supervised flight hours in a more controlled environment. The difference between the two is one of performance and religious beliefs. In the tradition of Conti turbo engines, it has a lower compression than the NA engine and uses a boost pressure in the 36in range to provide the rated power. I'm no statistician, just passing on the information we were provided. It is rated at 10 or 15hp more than the NA engine with the turbonormalizer. He said the loss risk of an SR22 was slightly more than 3 times the loss risk of an SR20. They're both just very good airplanes, in that respect, for training and use by recreational/non-professional pilots, many of whom struggle to log even 100 hours in a year now. As part of our due diligence, as we were contemplating making the change, our underwriter told us the statistical loss risk (fatal and non-fatal) of a 182 is almost identical to a 172.

Our lead underwriter was very clear that the whole industry has become very sophisticated at compiling individual model type records and sharing information to assess loss risk. We just replaced it this summer with a turbocharged 182 (an S or a T, not sure which model), an airplane we think will prove much more popular than the Cirrus due to our Rocky Mountain altitude, the easier step up from a 172 for a 100 hour pilot (our FTU has 13 172 trainers) and the much lower rental cost, in part because the insurance is far less than what we were having to pay to cover the underpowered Cirrus. And not as popular as we thought it would be for cross country rentals because it couldn't carry enough. The SR20 proved to be expensive to insure and to maintain. Time in it gave no credit from our insurer to anyone wanting to step up to their own SR22.

We had a Continental powered SR20 in our Club rental fleet for a number of years.

Sr22t vs sr22