No, the Baron is not a supermodel, more like Mary Ann. She's simple, dependable, sweet, easy on the eyes, and fun to go places with.

Much of the discussion was due to the OP listing a budget more suited to Ginger.

But she has a good personality!

Count me chief among the baron detractors. I see it much more as an issue of a Wayne Gretzky not getting many votes for the NFL hall of fame. Nothing wrong with the baron, it was just built to supply a demand that has shrunk over time.

That is a good point. When the Baron was originally built there were no 6-place singles with de-ice, turbos, pressurization, etc. Today, there are many single engine planes that will do what a Baron will (and more) and there are far more people qualified to fly the single. The Baron is still a great plane and being cheap they are still a good option, but there is no way I would spend $500k+ on a twin anything right now if it did not burn JetA. Too many other options out there.

Ditto.

Ditto.

I can't speak for Todd, but I was referring to turbine aircraft, not diesel piston aircraft. If I'm spending north of a half of a million dollars, it's going to be turbine powered.

You can speak for me as well on that Craig. After $300k or so I am not flying a piston anything.

What turbine can you get for 300k and operate on 30k per year?

What turbine can you get for 300k and operate on 30k per year?

My MU-2 didn't cost much North of that and is a whole lot more airplane....Costs (all in) are not much more as well...

My MU-2 didn't cost much North of that and is a whole lot more airplane....Costs (all in) are not much more as well...

What turbine can you get for 300k and operate on 30k per year?

In fact, I would charter a nice KA200 for $1700 per hour instead. 30 hours would more than take care of my trips. $50,000 per year and I sit in the back having a bloody Mary while the pilots do all the work. That is still cheaper than owning a Baron at $300k and I do nothing but enjoy the trip.

I just don't see any reason to own a $300k+ aircraft of any kind unless you are flying hundreds of hours per year and need it for business since it does nothing but eat hay most of the time when you are not using it. Then again, I am not rich and I don't like what I see coming in hte future, so I am probably more conservative than just about anyone here. I don't want much of my wealth wrapped up in an airplane.[/quote]

Conservative??
Todd, It is really not that expensive.

Pay 300k for the airplane; that is the expense.
Fly 30 hrs. at 28gph is $4,500 per year for fuel. Own your own hangar and the ground lease is 975.
Annual service 4,500, self insure and you are flying a Baron for $10k per year.
Show me another twin that can do this.
Conservative + Safety = Twin engine
I think smart money buys a Baron.

I have seen some of the most beautiful airplanes on this site. Magnificent! well thought out upgrades that meet the owners standards based on there needs and expectations.
It's all good.
An Airplane is an asset. An asset that some people would rather to touch and feel.
Fly it whenever you want, on your terms and on your schedule and feel good about it.
These are Supermodels and they make your life great. They will show and do exactly what they are told and never complain.
All I can say about the demand for these wonderful airplanes is that they were the first. The demand was there and it has evolved. Anytime you saturate a market the demand
is still there; it just gets diluted.

Chartering would take all the fun out of it. I'm a pilot, I enjoy piloting, that's why I'm here. I need to see a lot more to be convinced a 300k mu2 or KA can be run for 30k yr. no way..