If you in any way can remotely consider a 172 and a Bonanza (either normally
aspirated or turbine) comparable you need a pretty significant reality
check. Both are great airplanes in their own regard, but do not in any way
compare in terms of performance and capability. The turbine adds a lot of
reliability compared to a piston plane, even a twin.

Once, while returning from Kentucky to Wisconsin, I got routed (through my
own ignorance) over the middle of Lake Michigan at 2,000 feet in solid IMC
without an autopilot while flying a 172 RG. The chance of survival in case
of an engine failure were near zero.

Now, I fly a Baron which is fully deiced, has radar and storm scope, and
even then the thought of an engine failure under the same conditions still
is concerning but eminently more survivable.

The turbine Bonanza offers even more reliability than the Baron. The
argument about tip tanks doesn't remotely make sense- you can never have too
much fuel, particularly when you're running out. They actually provide some
lift, and increase the gross weight of the plane. The turbine engine is half
the weight of the stock piston engine.

Until you've actually seen or flown in one, I wouldn't be too critical of a
turbine Bonanza. There's a lot more to flying or owning a plane than simply
making blanket judgments by reading the book numbers. My two planes, an
Extra 300 and the Baron, are perfect for me, but are likely too impractical
or of little value to a lot of other pilots, so who cares?