I think there’s lots of debate about sr22 etc and I wouldn’t want to upset anyone. My reason for not buying one is mainly that I think it’s overpriced and there’s just so much of it around. On a downturn this plane can lose a lot of value quickly. Also I don’t like the side stick just not very nice to fly by hand (everyone has their own views). Parachute is great but I don’t like that you can’t control where you land. I’d rather just get very good training on forced landings, or buy a twin which i may just end up doing. The idea was to build hours with the tb20 but if I can’t get a good one I’ll do the hours with my flying club (who actually have very solid pa28s mk3s) and go for a twin.
I think what I’ve learned the most is to be flexible and open minded. I think the matrix is great value at that price for what you can do with it, the payload, speed, and comfort for passengers. It even has a new engine. I think that can be negotiated down to 550 in this market and then it’s the same price as an oldish sr22, with a lot more airplane…
I haven’t looked at mooneys yet – I will do that next! Tb20 is defo my top choice but I’m not wasting 50-60k of import costs just to get it. Don’t think I want it that badly.
Rami1988 wrote:
The idea was to build hours with the tb20 but if I can’t get a good one I’ll do the hours with my flying club (who actually have very solid pa28s mk3s) and go for a twin.
You don’t necessarily have to build hours on a SEP if the goal is to go for a twin. I did my PPL on a C150 and went on to train for my IR/MEP on the Seneca with about 100 hrs total. If you simply want to do the MEP and the IR later, you can do that pretty quickly after the PPL.
In the Twin sector, you have the choice between legacy twins such as the Senecas and Twin Comanches or you can go for a DA42. All of them are quite capable airplanes.
The DA42 is the most advanced of them all, usually with G1000 or similar and it consumes Jet A1.
Senecas need Avgas but are very capable and usually FIKI equipped airplanes which in most cases come with a decent IFR fit too but for very much lower prices than a DA42 would go. Seneca II and III upwards are good all purpose twins which can also take grass runways and short fields occasionally but also can keep safe altitude on one engine over the Alps in most cases. They are not speed queens but rather “a Volvo of the skies” with a decently large cabin and payload and, in the long range tank version, a range between 800 and 1000 NM if flown high and by the book. There are ample Senecas around, the good choice there is to go for one which is not ultra high hours (trainers) and one which is equipped decently with FIKI, 3 axis AP (KFC150/200 or similar) and a good avionics fit.
Another variant is the Twin Commanche, which imho is one of the best twin designs ever, but again, this comes at a price. The best of those is the Turbo Twin Commanche, which bolts two Rajay Turbo Normalizers onto the 160 hp IO320 engines. The nice thing about that is, the Turbo TC can operate like a normal non turbo airplane low altitude with about 150 kts if you want but if you need the power, it can go on stereoids and become a 170-180 kt airplane high up. With turbos, the single engine altitude also is much higher. What most of them are not is de-iced and those who are don’t have the FIKI qualifikation. However, with the turbos and the capability to fly high, this is not necessarily a too big problem. They are however not airplanes which suffer fools gladly, particularly the fuel system with up to 6 tanks needs to be managed and understood. It also requires someone who is willing to really learn the systems of this plane.
What you get is quite remarkable though: A twin with the consumption of a Single and a range which if flown properly can do just about everything within Europe. One quite well known publisher in Germany used to operate a similar airplane and did lots of really long range flights with it, all the way to Hong Kong, Usuiah and many times to the US. In terms of bang for buck, the PA30/39 is probably the best light twin there ever ways.
In the G-Market there is one available currently which would tick most of my boxes: It is turbo, it has decent avionics for the purpose (to add an Aspen or Garmin G5 is not such a big deal if one wishes) and it has some de-icing equipment. It also looks pretty decent inside and has most of the desirable options such as 120 USG fuel capacity, alternators, e.t.c. With it’s price one could easily upgrade it to e.g. an Aspen or a similar and get a much needed respray. But it can fly as it is and would be also a good airplane to learn the basics of MEP flying.
I split the post in two as I just lost 1 hour of typing before…
Rami1988 wrote:
I haven’t looked at mooneys yet – I will do that next!
If you are looking at TB20ties, they compare to Mooneys like a nice comfy family sedan to a Mini-Cooper or in the more powerful versions a Ferrari. You end up with a cabin which is about as tight as a PA28, one door only unless you find a “Ultra” which are rare and expensive and you end up with considerably less payload. While TB20’s are really family planes, the Mooney is at best a 2 seater with lots of baggage or a 3/4 seater if you trade range. But you will get a lot more speed and efficiency.
The direct opposite of the TB20 would be either the M20 J 201/205 or the M20 S Eagle. Both of these are normally aspirated, the main difference being the engine. 201’s are 200 hp airplanes which cruise at about 160 kt and have a range close to 1000 NN, slightly less than the TB20 but in terms of performance they are quite similar. The Eagle has a 240 hp IO550 under it’s bonnet. It has the long cabin inherited originally from the Porsche Mooney, which means it is quite spacy in the rear as well and shares the cabin with the Ovation and Acclaim. They are quite rare but they are neat if you can find one. They fly at 175 kts maximum but can with a bit of coaxing also reach a remarkable range. Full fuel payload is about 500 lb. (The Eagle has, or so rumours go, a hidden feature: It’s tanks are the same as the Ovations which have 100 USG as opposed to 80 of the Eagle. However, it is “limited” by a fuel tab. If you ignore that tab and continue (carefully) fuelling, you can apparently end up filling the full 100 USG into the Eagle too, which improves the range by about 150-200 NM).
Looking at the offerings in the UK market, there is one airplane which sticks out, but it is a totally different animal than the non-turbo airplanes mentioned above. On the other hand, you might have read about the type here, as it is the very model the current Australia flight by the “terbangs” is being done with: A Mooney M20K 252 encore.
Amongst Mooneyacs, this particular model is by many seen as the best Mooney ever built. It has a turbo engine but one which has come a very long way from the failure prone first editions: The Encore uses a TCM TSIO-360-SB1B Engine rated at 220 hp. This will give it a top speed of about 200 kts high up but more realistically a speed of around 180 kt at FL150 or so at 11 GPH, by the books. I think @terbang can say a lot more about this model than I can.
The one on offer has a low hour engine and prop and is decently equipped. It is on the market with WF Aviation, of which one of the owners is a regular here in the forum. It is however N-Reg, whether it can be put onto G-Reg I am not sure, but at least it should not have a VAT problem.
Of course there are more Mooneys around, there is a Bravo also advertized on planecheck and there are regularly more. The top models are the Ovations and Acclaims. The long range Ovation is probably the only certified airplane which has a near trans atlantic range out of the factory, with about 2500 NM top range.
Rami1988 wrote:
I’d rather just get very good training on forced landings
A very good idea and I wholeheartedly support you. Playing the devils advocate, ask yourself how much you intend to fly and if you would be able and willing to keep proficient. Putting the aircraft down power off precisely where you want is a perishable skill. Not mentioning doing this at night or in marginal weather.
Cirrus might indeed be an option to consider
Guys, you can’t compare a 1969 piston twin with a 2000-2002 TB20 GT for the unscheduled maintenance angle. But yeah some people just love old planes – especially if it is somebody else who pours 20k a year (a figure posted by one famous owner for an Aztec) into the airframe 
The Curris chute – do a search Condition for condition, an SR22 will cost a lot more, to buy and to run (20k chute work every 10 years) but it has a vastly higher “family acceptance” (meaning: wife nervous of flying / husband’s heart attack risk). If the latter is a factor then an SR22 is the only option. Indeed there is a lot of “sensitivity” around the Cirrus and the chute, which IMHO is largely due to the evangelical way with which Cirrus USA promotes the product. We have done that here in years past (check the linked threads) and there is no problem discussing it (in those threads) because nobody currently on EuroGA has any problem with it.
In the engine failure case, there is no need to put the plane down exactly where you want. Engine failures are extremely rare and you just need to manage that risk, by not overflying large cities (you aren’t allowed to do so anyway in a SE plane) and flying generally in daylight. Night flight is rarely useful in Europe anyway because most reasonably priced airports are closed. I have 3k hrs of which 30 are at night
Peter wrote:
there is no need to put the plane down exactly where you want.
Remember the recent dual engine failure over Paris? They all walked away exactly because the pilot knew how to put the plane where he intended to.
Peter wrote:
Night flight is rarely useful in Europe anyway because most reasonably priced airports are closed
luckily, most reasonably priced grass strips are open 24/7 
RV14 wrote:
They all walked away exactly because the pilot knew how to put the plane where he intended to.
and
RV14 wrote:
most reasonably priced grass strips are open 24/7
I envy your optimism euphoria @RV14, what a positive view on the world
Remember the recent dual engine failure over Paris? They all walked away exactly because the pilot knew how to put the plane where he intended to.
We don’t know this yet but my money would be on putting some juice in the tanks before flying, rather than hope for some unbelievable luck when crashing. Even Bob Hoover could not land in some city without smashing up half the place, and the plane.
most reasonably priced grass strips are open 24/7
You are very lucky where you fly For a start most strips have no lights. Even the WW2 SOE agent insertion flights needed (temporary, obviously) “runway” lights. I’d say 1% of strips in Europe are usable at night, due to a) no lights b) no landowner permission c) obstacle etc issues.
Peter wrote:
I’d say 1% of strips in Europe are usable at night, due to a) no lights b) no landowner permission c) obstacle etc issues.
Of course it depends on what you mean by “strips”. If you mean fields listed in the AIP as opposed to some aircraft owner’s private field, then I think the figure is considerably higher.
Most strips are not in the AIP, and most owners would not want them to be in the AIP. In Europe, almost every runway is on private land.
The relevance to a TB20 is that it is fine for the “European mission profile” which is shaped by all this stuff.
