If you are a taller guy, make sure you sit in a Cirrus. I found the headroom to not be adequate. AYS the Mooney has more headroom than the Baron. I have had 2 Mooneys and now a Baron. I like the Baron and have learned to keep my head down in turbulence.

Where are you located? I'm happy to take you for a spin in my B55 and your mind will be made up.

Stay with the Mooney, get a Bravo and with TKS if you really want ice protection. Then anytime you want to cross the Rockies no issues. I don't know how you could do it cheaper and faster. I suppose a TN Bo of some sort would perform similar but I don't know what kind of deice they have. Yes, I am biased. What Mooney have you been flying ? Flight plan is w no wind.

I fly a Baron.

If it happens that I can no longer afford that, I will fly a Cirrus.

Tony - the Mooney has amazing economy for the speed it provides. However, I decided I want a second engine or a parachute at this point. There have been a couple of accidents recently that just made me nervous flying IFR. Even on VFR days, I am getting tired of always looking for fields where I could land, not to mention that sometimes there just are no good options. If I go the twin route, I am willing to pay for the additional expense, and get the needed recurrent training (which probably will be fun to do).
Given that I don't need the extra payload, the Cirrus is also a good option. It is newer, avionics are top notch, while the parachute potentially gives me an out in case my luck/skill run out.
So I could either have that, or a very nice B55/C310. I've been struggling with this dilemma for the past half a year or so, and now that I am looking into a commute from Dallas to Denver for my job it is time to make a decision.
Adam - I am in Dallas. I believe you are in CA. I appreciate the offer for a ride, but looks like we are too far away...

Get a twin. No contest.

If you've got 200k, why not get an A*?

Stefan,

Here's a different take on your question about being "safer."

If buying a plane with a parachute or a second engine means that you will be flying in riskier conditions -- in your initial note you mention flying over mountains, at night, in IMC, in icing conditions -- then I'd say you should keep the Mooney and fly in less risky conditions.

If you add a parachute or second engine margin of safety, but then give up that advantage by adding higher elements of environmental risk, your chance of dying in a plane is no better than in your Mooney.....or may actually be worse.

Sorry, I know that wasn't your direct question.....but it is the REAL question.

+1

Here goes my 2 cents. If you get good training and stay diligent a good twin is always safer than a single. When I flew my Mooney, I never flew at night or with low ceilings. With those scenarios, if you loose an engine your in serious trouble. No matter what, in a single you are going down. Even with a parachute, if you over rough terrain or forest you may not survive. A twin gives you an easy opportunity to fly to an airport and land.

As far twins go, Barons and twin Cessnas are the way to go. Personally, I like the space, comfort and ease of flying twin Cessnas. I always found Barons to be tight in the elbow room. In your budget you can find many good planes. I have always preferred turbo charged planes. They do cost more to maintain, but I prefer to have the ability to keep climbing above weather when needed, even flying at 11-13,000 feet gets you above the haze layer. Also, flying out of Denver the turbos are very helpful. Frankly, with your budget, I would look at pressurized twin Cessnas, 340, 414 or 421. The pressurization maintenance cost is negligible. Not only do they provide the comfort of pressurization, most have air conditioning. Once you have a plane with A/C and pressurization, you will never go back. They also, handle ice very well. One other positive to pressurization is the lower fatigue after your flight. No matter what you buy, buy the best plane you can afford with the toys that you want and find an expert to do the prebuy. I would never be opposed to buying a plane with run out engines if the price is reflective of the cost for new engines. If you do decide on a twin Cessna, join the Twin Cessna Flyer organization. They offer great support and insight towards twin Cessnas.

There have been several of these "should I buy a twin or a Cirrus threads". I understand the head scratching as I was once there myself. But when cost is the issue, or at least a primary driver, its acquisition cost only that gets all the attention. That is short sighted.

Take a look at the total cost of owning the plane including fixed costs, maintenance, fuel and training over your anticipated ownership period. Estimate what the depreciation is likely to be over the period as well. Now which airplane is most cost effective? It may surprise you.

Then do an analysis of your typical mission costs which factor in time and cost per mile. The cheaper plane could turn out to be the most expensive. I've been doing this quite rigorously on about 10 airframes of varying ages, several different manufacturers and types of airplanes. In several cases newer and more expensive to buy are much cheaper to own. In the others what the conventional wisdom says is most cost effective isn't.

That's the way to figure out cost effectiveness. Try this if money is your primary driver.

If not, just do what my wife keeps telling me to do, and buy what you want.

There is no doubt that the twins will cost 2-3x what a typical single will cost to operate. When I had a Mooney, it took pocket change to operate. The costs of twins is not for the faint of heart. If operating a twin is outside your potential budget, then I would certainly prefer a Cirrus, with a parachute, over any other single.

That being said, If you can afford to operate a twin then that's the way to go.

I went through the same analysis in detail. For me, I'm one of those pilots that can't stand it when something isn't right on the airplane. It's not a particularly financially efficient personality trait. With that, in my Baron b58 search in 2015, I determined that it takes every bit of $200k to get a mechanically sound mid+ time engined Baron 58 and really, that number is $225k, no matter how I sliced it....that was the number (incl air conditioning as I'm in houston). Buy it that way or buy was for less and make it that way. Upgrade from there with avionics OR find a mid 90's modern B58 with good garmin 530w and your in the $350's and low 4's (that's when your actually done). I did find some nice early 70's B58's that can be bought and were perfect to buy and fly for under 200k....but once you start into the panel, forget about it.

If you go in a ride in a B58 or even better, a B55... Your likely ruined. Just warning you. Don't do it unless you're prepared to own a twin because you will modify your spreadsheets until they clearly indicate you'll actually make money if you buy a baron. It's an odd phenomena.

I know twins are more to own an operate but insurance, hangar, subscriptions, annual, damn autopilots, avionics....all cost the same or similar twin or not. I look at the twin cost as incremental but the capabilities as as multiple of the single (see how easy I did that! Don't test fly a baron unless your ready to own one). Also, I previously owned a 34 old turbocharged Cessna 206 that was updated and mechanically very solid but it was still an expensive single so my perspective is likely different than others who are much better at owning and operating a single very efficiently. Also, I front loaded / prepurchased maintenance at the buy where others may do everything on an as-needed basis so this lowers my twin maintenance costs 'perspective'. I consider replacing 34 year old brake lines and brake rotors as part of the purchas price, others may buy and then at 2 or 3rd annual get the bill for that. That's how I get to the $225k entry price.

Arlen - I believe that what you are trying to convey is not to take unreasonable risks just because there is a second engine or a parachute. Accident data seems to support it.
That being said, I do believe that a second engine (with appropriate training), or a parachute increase the safety profile of a mission, in specific circumstances. Such as: IFR flying (see recent accident of engine failure while on approach); evening/night flying; flying over water; flying over inhospitable terrain (recent accident where the pilot had to land on train tracks after being vectored to a non-existent airport). If I owned a twin or a Cirrus, I would feel much more comfortable flying in any of those circumstances than I do now. Would I feel comfortable flying in a situation that is a combination of those? Not at this time. It appears that when you stack unfavorable factors to the mission profile the odds of the pilot error increases much more than the odds of the airplane failing you. But I would feel much more comfortable flying VFR at night in a twin/Cirrus than I do now in my Mooney. The odds of me doing something dumb/getting disoriented in night VFR are low enough that I am okay with that risk. I am not okay with the risk of an engine failure at night.
Regarding operating costs - in my Mooney I see about 8.5 gph and 150 kts true airspeed. If I would go to a Cirrus, it appears I should expect somewhere around 14 gph with some increase in speed, and if I go to a twin (Baron/Cessna), probably somewhere around 20 gph (leaned, and throttle not firewalled) with a similar speed. Difference in fuel cost would be about 30 dollars/hr or so. I'm okay with that.
Maintenance cost - overhauling a second engine definitely an added expense. Financially, I can support that as well. I plan to keep this next airplane for at least 5 years. The Cirrus (even a 2006 model) would definitely depreciate more during this time than a twin that is already depreciated. But the money gained in "less depreciation" will be lost in the upgrades that an old twin would need.
To some extent, it appears that there is no clear answer, and in the end it simply comes down to preference. I've read plenty of threads on this matter and for every happy Cirrus owner there is an equally happy Baron owner and everybody has plenty of good arguments to justify their purchase decision...

The logical conclusion to that line of thinking results in selling the Mooney and not flying at all.

The REAL question is, for a given risk tolerance and budget, what is the most utility I can get from a light aircraft?

Oddly enough, having higher utility IS a safety feature, since you will fly more and be more proficient. The absolute worse thing to do it buy the most complex plane that DOESN'T do your mission. If you have a Mooney and you fly it only day VFR, you won't take it on very many trips, so you might as well get rid of it.

In my mind, a good fit would be a Colemill deiced 310 or B55, say late 1960s to mid 1970s. Twins provide propulsion redundancy, but the systems redundancy (dual electric, dual vac), and the vastly superior climb capability are probably more important to safety. In particular, the most important ice avoidance feature is climb rate and the twins win that one easily.

The comfort of a 310 versus a Mooney is no contest, either, not only in cabin size, but also the ride in turbulence due to higher wing loading.

Mike C.

I'll say it again: Aerostar 601P or SS700. Outperforms every other piston aircraft (and a few turboprops) in pressurized comfort, highest wing loading of the lot so it rides exceptionally well in turbulence (what turbulence?), docile on one motor, and feared by most who don't know better so they're pretty cheap. The TIO540U2A in the SS700 is a heavy case motor that you'd have to beat with a sledge to hurt.

The chute guys are nuts if they think a deployment over the Rockies is going to end well even if they are gently deposited with no harm on the rocks.