Musick's 2nd Law: The best airplane for you, is the one your wife likes.

When my wife learned that the Twin Beech she was riding in had a potty, she asked, "Why don't we have one of these???" Beware the The Atkinson, he is an expensive friend! <G>

I agree the Diamond is the worst choice for all the reasons you mentioned, and it isn't a great trip plane. It would be a harder choice if they cost the same as a Baron, but at $800k it isn't close.

Cirrus vs. Baron is more of a personal thing. That you had a Mooney, another pilot's plane, suggests to me you'd probably prefer the Baron. I'd fly them both and decide from there.

I had a long discussion with my wife last night. I presented the 4 scenarios. When I talked about the Baron being less to purchase she responded that it can't be as "safe" as the others because it didn't cost as much. Her position was that there must be a reason the market devalued the Baron, and wouldn't accept the fuel price/older technology/equivalent utility to a newer plane explanation. I think she wants the Cirrus. There's a Cirrus flight school at the FBO where my plane is parked. I think I'll talk to them tomorrow about training.

You might try using a car analogy. You could buy an older high end car like a Mercedes, Lexus, etc. or a new motorcycle. Either would cost about the same. The older high end vehicle would definitely be safer than the motorcycle even though it costs less. Same goes for airplanes.

However, twins are only safer if you stay proficient in them. Twice as likely to have an engine failure but much much lower odds of losing all power. Low speed engine failure can be a disaster. Not sure about the Baron, but I have read that with the addition of vortex generators, the C340A has a Vmc below stall speed. Still would require quick application of rudder though.

Wish my wife wanted a bigger plane!

This is why I don't have a wife and if I did I'd get divorced over it. Life's just too short.

Buy what you want. If she wants to come along great. If not, she can drive. I can't imagine having to "present" an idea to another person unless they're paying the bills.

classic Fraley!

Sounds like they may have already talked to her

Never limit yourself to only one plane.

Why does your wife have more than one pair of shoes?

"Different occasions and needs"

Same goes for planes.

You mixed apples and oranges.

You compared a new DA42, a 2009 SR22, and a 50 year old Baron. Is the Baron under valued? Heck no, a new G58 sells for over a million bucks, far more than either of those other two new. Apples to apples the Baron wins that argument easily. What you're doing by buying used is letting someone else take the hit on the depreciation, just like buying a used car. In the case of the Baron you get 90% of the benefit at 10% of the cost. Present it that way and see what she says.

I assume she flew in your MU2 when you had it, so that sets a particular standard of airplane travel.

How about a Cessna 340?

About $200-250K. FIKI. Pressurized. 210 knots. Twin.

Pressurization is a game changer for passenger comfort and falls in the middle of your price ranges.

If she didn't need the twin/chute, then a Malibu would be another option.

Mike C.

BS, The statistics are very skewed! They don't show every twin that loses an engine and lands safely and therefore becomes a non-event.

BS, The statistics are very skewed! They don't show every twin that loses an engine and lands safely and therefore becomes a non-event. I'd rather have a second engine and a well trained pilot any day.

I'm very confused by this statement. Wouldn't any non events make the safety data better therefore not skew the data?

Most quoted are fatalities. Those are unaffected.

And y'all are misquoting Tony in the last two posts.

Thanks! I fixed my post.