Okay, then why do you preach Cirrus - a plane that does it's absolute best to make high performance flying as easy as possible? Surely a Bo or 210 has more levers, and is more of a challenge.
I'm a complex individual, but to answer your question, here is my non hyperbolic internet troll actual real answer for someone who can only afford to primarily fly one type of plane:
-you are right, I have a sweet spot for the steam punk nature of knobs and dials and round instruments.. back when I played more FSX I always enjoyed "flying" the 737-200 and 747-1/2/300
-before I flew my first Cirrus I wasn't sure I appreciated what they offered to the GA world, and I totally get where a lot of the angst against it comes from. I "grew up" flying a C172 and PA28.. The C172 had the super old KLN, the PA28 did not. The PA28 was from 1971 (?) and the C172 was from early 2000... the C172 was arguably a much nicer plane, but the PA28 was so much more fun to fly, despite being looked worn to tethers.. so my love for low wings stems from that
-but back to the point, what the Cirrus lacks in mechanical knobs and steam punk appeal it makes up for in what it requires intellectually to be flown *well* and by compromising out those dorky needs with rational practicality of the flying I typically do:
--the G1000, while not hard, does take a certain skill level to know how to use it well for hard IFR flying, it's not as simple as "push the AP button" after saying "Hey Cirri, fly me to KAPC" - it also looks cool in its own right, like you're staring at one of the control panels on the Star Trek Enterprise. The Cirrus also doesn't like to go slow on approach (my CSIP basically swore me to never go under 90 KIAS until short final), with full flaps in that means you're keeping about 30%-40% power to keep it level.. you can be easily caught off guard if at idle and leveling off with flaps in. The plane stalls okay, but needs more attention than stalling a P28 or C172.. and similar to any big bored turbo plane you do have to keep an eye on your CHTs, man press, be gentle on power changes, etc., just because there is no blue knob doesn't mean that you can ignore these gauges. (some people do (Cirrus stereotypes), and then wonder why they need an overhaul at 800 hrs and give the plane a bad name). It also looks and feels modern and I do a lot of flying with non pilots and a lot of "long ish" distance flying (300-500 nm), so being able to fire up a competent autopilot and put the XM on in a comfortable seat where I'm not touching shoulders with the dude next to me is a big benefit as we cruise along at 200 KTAS above the weather in comfort. Could a Bonanza give me that? Not really.. I wouldn't be doing 200 knots and I'd be rubbing shoulders with the dude next to me. Could the Mooney do that? It would go faster (depending on model) but again, cabin width is a big thing for me. Then you've got the 210, which honestly, I was excited to get a few hours in as I always hoped it would be a high wing I could fall in love with, but at least the one I flew just felt heavy, but not in a good solid way, and again the cabin is just so narrow, you can't realistically actually use all 6 seats. The plane is also very comfortable and controlled up through 180 KIAS, if approach says "keep your speed up, I have A320 behind you" it's nice to be able to do that without feeling like you're asking the plane to do something it doesn't want to. With the fat prop you can still pull the power back and get yourself slowed and configured while maintaining a stabilized approach. That's what I mean by the intellectual challenge, it feels a bit like what I imagine airliner flying might be like
So there you have it. It's not a full 10 in any one category for me, but it averages out as what, for me, right now I like. The other reason I "preach it" is because while I generally have no issues with people hating on it, it does get tiring all the stereotypes, so I have to stand up for my little model of plane I fly. It's got the same engine and same avionics that many new Bonanza, Mooney, etc., have in them.. and it costs about the same. So objectively this tells me the hate for it comes from personal prejudice than any actual data point. But I digress on that front
I just remembered it had a parachute, honestly for me at least that's like 1% of the reason I like the plane. It's mostly for nervous passengers and family and does admittedly give some piece of mind that it's another tool I have, usually only crossed my mind though when I'm over water or inhospitable terrain, or flying through an icing layer and your mind runs (what if all the FIKI pumps break, what if I lose the engine, etc)
Different strokes for different folks - I'd rather drive a beat up Civic in the mountains of Colorado than a Ferrari in Wichita.
