I really enjoy the opinions of those who have owned/flown both. As time goes by, and "needs" change, the Cirrus becomes more attractive.

I'd really like some opinions of cost of operation...TN Cirrus vs. NA Baron...if anyone has experience. Those 2 planes fit my use better than anything else. I want the speed....and I fly a lot. (in past two weeks have had approximately 24 flights in the Baron).


Love the Baron. night time over downtown Atlanta looks good from the Baron...

75TT Bonanza, 400TT SR22 and 375TT in other GA singles in the last 4 years, when I started keeping a logbook again.

As for the Cirrus flight control spring system being a safety feature - I don't buy it. When hand flying you must constantly retrim, because the mechanical spring pressure is strong, never light and never static. Take a break from trimming and your wrist will eventually tire from fighting the springs - not a safety feature if the system malfunctions and leaves you fighting full trim spring deflection. Conveniently, the trim Coolie hat is right on top of the side stick, where your thumb permanently lives when the autopilot is disengaged. Let the side stick go and the trim springs can take the airplane anywhere. I'd more trust a Bonanza after letting the controls go (but not much - it's no Cherokee or Cessna either), but both Bonanzas and Cirrus can have you in the weeds in a jiffy if you're hand flying with your head down. The Bo's flight control feel when too slow is honest, appreciably lightened by lessened aerodynamic loads - the stiff Cirrus artificial control feel will have you thinking you're 50 knots over stall speed all the way to the break, unless you're focussed. I don't call that a safety feature either. I doubt there are any Cirrus pilots who would not like to have a Bonana's flight control system in their SR22s, an otherwise superb design. Every type has its tradeoffs.

If they're similar vintage with the exact same history and maintenance quality I believe the only real cost difference will be difference in fuel and the additional cost to maintain the 2nd engine.
We've owned '05 '06 (non-turbo) & '07 (turbo) SR22's. The Cirrus maintenance costs were a little lower than a '91 Mooney Bravo (turbo) and a little higher than an '84 Cessna 206 (non-turbo). But in any given 5 year period that could be all switched around. The last Cirrus, the Mooney and the 206 were all maintained by the same mechanic.

IMO the difference in each particular airplane and it's history significantly outweighs anything. But you know that better than me.

But...I've never owned a Beech so I can't directly compare that.

My experience with two Bonanzas is when you turn loose of the controls you a left, diving, deepening spiral. You don't get that in a Cirrus. I had no issues with the springs on a Cirrus but I didn't mind the bob weights on the Bo's either.

I'm not where I can look at my log book but have hundreds of hours in both planes. Plenty of IFR in both as well. For hand flying in IMC I'd take the Cirrus but wouldn't refuse the Bo. Can't go wrong either way.

If you have never flown a small taildragger, try that. I've let a few of my friends with a lot of experience, but no tailwheel attempt a take off in my 120, two of them I had to take the controls.
And the other I would be generous saying the take off was never in doubt.

Greg

Got checked in the Cirrus CFI program. It was very similar to the Arrow IIs handling I owned minus the gear switch. Stable, responsive enough but nothing exciting.
IMO anyone who is comfortable in a Cherokee will be comfortable with the Cirrus . Side stick is a non issue.

Brian,

I have flown lots of GA airplanes, a handful of homebuilts and a couple ex military; AT-6 and Stearman.

I would only categorize two as "difficult": the Pitts and the One Design. The Pitts because it is a Pitts and the One Design because it was a poorly built airplane with a bad aft CG. I would give the Midget Mustang a nod as well.

Don't get me wrong, the Pitts is a great airplane, I would love to own another one, but it is short coupled, quick to respond to EVERYTHING and you can't see squat.

I would make myself look foolish to list all the airplane I strapped on over the years with no checkout: I was young and foolish and it all turned out well. That list includes the Stearman and AT-6. But, I took one ride in a Pitts and knew that I wasn't about to try that without proper instruction before going to the factory to pick up my new S2-B.

So, if you wan't to experience "difficult", the Pitts would be my suggestion.

Jgreen

John, this is the reason why if I was going to have a Van's RV it would be tricycle gear with a tip up canopy. I no longer have the need to prove my pilothood; an easy loop or roll is all the acro I need.

Mark,

RV's are great airplanes, conventional and tricycle. I taught my youngest son to fly in the Cub when he was nine years old. A friend of mine built a RV-6, conventional gear and one day told us, my son and me, to go fly. He was in the right seat watching while I shot a touch and go. The next round I stopped and told him to have a try. He made a perfect circuit ending in a three point greaser. So much for that.

Don't walk away from a good conventional gear RV. They aren't as docile as a Citabria, but close.

Jgreen

I do think that they got the ergonomics right, especially in the G2 version with Avidyne PFD/MFD. It is a very simple airplane with no more switches than necessary and they are generally all in a logical place. I can lay off flying the SR20-G2 for months and get in and feel completely comfortable. If I try that in G1000-equipped aircraft I get lost in the menus. If I try that in a Pilatus PC-12 with the King EFIS system and a gauge and switch for every other subsystem I am also hunting for stuff.

It is not a great hand-flying airplane and it is noisy inside compared to a Bonanza (the composite fuselage acts as a resonator). But the mechanics love working on them and a used Cirrus is ridiculously cheap.