I have been flying my Baron for over 5 years. The best way I can describe flying a piston twin is that you are in constant motion. There is no question stepping into the Cirrus was a step back to "simple."

I am not sure what direction my next move will be. I think a lot about going back to "simple." Going back to simple does not necessarily mean a big loss in performance or redundancy these days. But, I think just as much about stepping up to a pressurized twin.

I have never owned an airplane more than five years so this could get interesting...By my math the operational expense of the Baron (paid for) would support a $300-$350ish AMU Cirrus. Moving up to a pressurized twin would support the cost of a $500ish AMU Cirrus. That's when you start scratching your head and wondering what we are trying to accomplish here.

The beauty and the beast with a piston twin is that you need to be ready to fly. Not that you don't need to be ready in a Cirrus. But, the overall workload is just much higher in a piston twin. In order to get into an "easier to fly turbine" you are stepping up into the stratosphere of expense. I could probably run a C90 for awhile, but after the division of the marital assets in the divorce it might be a bit of a struggle.

So, I don't know. Then I look at the Duke's and walk right up to the edge of the cliff, rock back and forth trying to convince myself to jump. It's all insane.

I too, took a Demo ride with Gary in a brand new SR22T from Fargo to our other office in Mt. Pleasant, Iowa. It was 5 hours round trip (maybe 10-15 minutes difference from our C340). It was in February and on departure from Fargo it was below zero with wind gusts to 40 or more and an all out blizzard! I can't remember what RVR was but I didn't see a King Air go by while we were waiting for them at the hold short line if that gives you any idea. The airplane was rock solid on taxi even in the gusts... Couldn't believe it as it took some convincing from Gary that this trip was well within the limits of this airplane when we were at the FBO and all the charter guys were scratching their heads about conditions. They sure looked at us funny when we walked out the door to go to a little single engine rig.

The Synthetic Vision was incredible when we rolled on the runway, and took off. We topped it all in less than 4000ft and the ride was solid. I would never have attempted this in the B36TC I used to have (had 530/430, Sandel and GMX200 plus TKS but B36's aren't certifiable for FIKI plus we would have had a handful on taxi). The airplane has more cockpit room than B36TC and the seats were suspiciously hard when you first sit in them but I had no fatigue during the trip (Bonanza seats are excellent too, exponetional to the 340 and the TBM). I'm 6'2, 215 and like Mr. Drew said, Gary is taller than me, but headroom and shoulder space were excellent. The barn doors are one advantage of the Beech and significant, I might add but the operating envelope of the Cirrus with the increase weight smokes the B36TC. The baggage room is also as good or better albeit more difficult to load. They also have seat belts for 5 in them for the family travel and 3 kids would work easily plus you would have room for bags and actually be legal too.

The technology and the safety features are simply, Impressive!!! I've never felt "safer" in any airplane and the Garmin Perspective platform "walks and talks" to use a metephor. I cannot think of one negative from a personal transportation perspective. Say what you want about the "Chute" but to me, and how I felt when I was flying, I was the same or more comfortable compared to my 340 I had (it got wrecked on the ground last fall) and no comparison to the 1800 hours I've had in other single engine airplanes mostly Bonanza, I've used for transportation over the years.

I bought a TBM however, and I know they don't compare but I'm back to the "what if it quits scenario and a dead stick landing". That chute would come in handy, maybe some day, ... Hope not. The SR22T just wasn't enough airplane for what I do, flying 1 to 3 days a week (I've put 130 hours on the TBM since April). I would however buy one in a heartbeat if all I needed was personal transportation. Hands down, no comparison, not a close second. I'm sorry because I'm a Beechcraft guy, at least I thought I was. I've heard it here, I think from that Jason guy so he gets the credit but the Cirrus Jet at the price point they are talking will change everything. Just saying.

Last, Mr. Gary Black is a gentleman. Meet him someday and go fly a Cirrus with him if you can. You'll never meet a more passionate, sincere, intelligent, informed and professional guy. That's my experience. I hope I don't get "Bipped" from the Beechcraft Forum.

Scott Steffes

Great thread Tom!

I have zero experience in a Cirri but I get the attraction. I was flying with my daughter in the 182 a few nights ago (she needs 3 hours of night for her private) and I found myself to be uncomfortable being in a single at night. We were talking about it and we both thought that if we lost our engine, our chances of survival were maybe 50/50. We were not over the mountains but it was still rough terrain (adobe hills) and there were not enough cars on the highway to figure out where it was. I really don't see any practical ways to mitigate this risk around here - you either fly at night in a single or you don't.

I was glad to read Scott's comments about still being concerned about this same exposure even in a TBM. I know the numbers don't support a need to be any more worried about this than something else but I've lost or had to shut down turbine engines (three times with jet engines and once with a garrett) and I don't have that much flight time so I have a hard time believing the numbers or at least believing they apply to me.

I was asked if I have ever flown a G58 with glass and the answer is, "No." I would like to see what, if anything, Glass does to the workload. I have flown my hangar mate's F33 with the dual Aspen.

I'm not sure why you find that to be the case. When everything is working a twin is like a big single. Move the throttles together like they're one. Other than the landing gear handle what's different. I do find the glass much easier to manage though, but you can add that in any plane and in my opinion the G500 + GTNs are much easier to use than all the knob twisting on the G1000... but at least the Perspective has a key pad.

Tom, standing invitation to fly the Red Bo, any time.
Panel now pretty close to what you experienced in the Cirrus.
I did all my IR training and check ride in a Cirrus, plus some business travel with an instructor. 140 or so hrs total.
I wanted that panel and ease of operation in my Bo.
I got it.
Actually I think mine is a bit better now....

This type of confidence and technology improvement is what I'll be seeking in my next move up the ladder. I shot an approach, missed and had to divert to an alternate last week in the Seneca. Although the Seneca has has G430W and coupled autopilot, I cannot say that I was as comfortable doing this as I would have been in a Perspective SR22. I don't have entire faith in my autopilot but the DFC90 is absolutely rock solid.

Just got an email from Gary with some pics. My apologies to my BT brothers and sisters for the smiles. Not sure what happened. I just lost control of myself.

....and another one bites the dust.

I kinda have to agree with you on this John. Most seasoned pilots have had to shut an engine down. The question is would they have made it back to the field if it had been the only one they had.

Well backing up from over 200 hrs in a G1000 I can tell you glass is a whole lot less workload/fatigue than steam gauges. But that said I think glass, esp. For the price, is way overstated. My steam gauge Baron is just as capable a plane. Today, the whole world is fixated on a video screen or a computer. Think about it: going from A to B, esp. In the system, you take off, you cruise, you land; that's it. The rest, mostly, is fluff; or you can get it on an IPad.

One other thing I might that I've learned or suspect form my adventures and observations: in many cases the complete glass relegates the pilot, if he so desires, to be nothing more than a button pusher. Well, that ain't going to happen in a piston twin if you want to stay alive when an engine checks out. Training, training, and more training are required to fill truly like a competent pilot. Frankly, I love it, but can appreciate others just want to get there. It's all about YMMV. Glad to hear those taller people can
Can fit into a Cirrus. Earlier models wouldn't work for me.

Tom great write up! I can totally see you in one of these some day.

I was getting ready to say now if they would only build a 6 seater. Then I thought duh I sat in it at OSH.

Now I just need to find a couple partners and get a deposit in on one of their jets!

I kinda have to agree with you on this John. Most seasoned pilots have had to shut an engine down. The question is would they have made it back to the field if it had been the only one they had.

This type of confidence and technology improvement is what I'll be seeking in my next move up the ladder. I shot an approach, missed and had to divert to an alternate last week in the Seneca. Although the Seneca has has G430W and coupled autopilot, I cannot say that I was as comfortable doing this as I would have been in a Perspective SR22. I don't have entire faith in my autopilot but the DFC90 is absolutely rock solid.