If you are retiring you don't have to be anywhere fast anymore. It sounds to me like you are trying to make life more simple. That brings a Cessna 182 into play and you, your wife and dog can watch the world go by in comfort. You all will enjoy looking down. Install BRS parachute for wife comfort. The dog will like getting in and out of it too.

Anybody along the way can work on it. No parts problems, no insurance problems. The only downside is you have to be willing to slow down and enjoy the ride.

For the price of a 182 these days he can have a lot more with an experimental, and still go faster when he wants to

A TBM to a 182 is quite the step back in speed

We fly a V35TC w Mountain High cannulas, hard to beat, just short of pressurization, just short of TN, but wow, did it ever change the way we fly. WOTLOPSOP, LOP climbs, 16-17.5 thousand cruise altitudes, 185-190 kts, good enough. Pretty much direct to anywhere, little traffic at those altitudes, above a lot of weather in smoother air.
Point is, Turbonormalizing your 36, adding MH portable or fixed, will transform your ops and easily do 200 KTAS. You won't mind the cannulas. Tip tanks are icing on the cake. Given a choice of TN vs boots or de-ice, I'd take the TN.

Concur with Michael Tarver. I also own and regulary fly a LIVP. Insurance is very high and almost no one carries any hull. Most underwriters require transition and annual recurrent training.

One thing not mentioned is your ability and desire to maintain an experimental yourself. The IVP is pretty complex and few shops will know anything about what is aft of the firewall. There is much to inspect and ensure proper operation of back there. Good Air Conditioning is almost a must have for comfort whenever pressurized. Many of these are not turn-key installations (like mine), they are built up from components sold for modifying classic cars.

To me, it is worth all that because I really wanted the performance and went into it with my eyes wide open.

I agree but maybe a bit less slow would be a P210. There’s always such a thing as too much adventure. FIKI and topping weather makes getting stuck harder, and 182s are surprisingly expensive (maybe because of the above).

P210R in particular are the sorted out 210 versions but hard to find.

I agree but maybe a bit less slow would be a P210. There’s always such a thing as too much adventure. FIKI and topping weather makes getting stuck harder, and 182s are surprisingly expensive (maybe because of the above).

P210R in particular are the sorted out 210 versions but hard to find.

No worries on maintenance, I can handle either side of the firewall. The equipment my company builds is way more technical than a IV-P. We are one of the few companies that can handle ultra high pressure hydraulics, up to 250,000 psi. A slow day is 40,000 psi.
If I can’t buy I will make it. CNC multi axis, laser, water jet, carbon fiber molding and 3D printers. Our fuel systems side makes part to 7 micron diametrical fit. Most airplane parts are chiseled out with tolerances you can throw a mad cat through. Textron could not build an airplane using centimeter tolerances let alone millimeter.

SX-300

You have the capability of owning an experimental plane, and keeping it flying. I had a really nice SX-300, but some of the parts were getting scarce...and if you didn't personally have the ability to do much of what you delineate, you had to hire it done...and the cost went up at that point (I had one $25,000 annual). I was charged fairly, it was just a lot of time-consuming work.


Just my opinion, but having owned both certified an experimental, it all depends on how much you want your personal level of involvement to be...and how comfortable you are with things that aren't "proven" (i.e., lots of data points...if a fleet size is less than 50 airframes, there simply isn't as much experience as if the fleet is in the thousands).


I've done both, been happy with both, and as is usual in aviation...."it depends".


With a Baron, it's pretty handy to be able to take it to a shop and get something done, even if you are away from home. The efficiencies of an experimental are attractive.

What Stan said. With an experimental, you get exceptional performance but are taking on a lot of uncertainty. Each experimental is unique. There are only a handful of mechanics in the entire Country that know enough about them to do an adequate Annual inspection. I think you would be better off to stick with a known quantity.

So get a Mirage.

You even get a heated glass windshield with one of those and you don’t have to spend M350 money.

Pressurized, turbocharged, air conditioned, de-ice, etc.

Sure you may have to upgrade the autopilot to something you want but if you’re really after the new auto-land tech you’re going to have to write a large check…

Ps.

The only thing that will get me out of my TAT TN A36 is something with pressurization.

Otherwise there’s simply no reason to change aircraft. What I have is very fast, holds a prodigious useful load, it’s roomy, comfortable and it’s affordable (vs many of the alternatives you mentioned).

As much as I like the Malibu it won’t fit in my hangar.

I don't know if Stan has flown the IV-P but I think the SX is even quirkier to fly than the Lancair and much less of them out there. Maybe he can opine?

Welcome to the Nature Coast! I'm based at KCGC. We moved here full time a year ago, it's the best!

Here is something I have learned in almost 40 years of aviation and multiple aircraft ownerships topping out witn a Cessna 340A. First, let's look at aircraft as a, "time machine." But, we have to consider all of the time associated with ownership of that machine including, time spent managing the aircraft, recurrent training, AOG, runup and shutdown checklists, fueling and then the actual door to door airtime on a typical flight profile.

If you look at an aircraft that way, my C340A was by far the slowest "time machine" I have ever owned and the C182 and F33 the fastest. YMMV.