Silvaire wrote:
Silvaire25-Oct-23 17:5806
Unless you are planning to use the plane primarily for traveling purposes, with not much local flying, something less complex would be better and more enjoyable to own IMO. What you’re not factoring in is the brain damage of fixing and maintaining things you don’t need to own – complex planes have a lot of ‘stuff’. Also its not terribly fun to fly a complex going-places plane on a short distance trip – too much procedure in too short a time. What you’ll find if you look around is that people with complex planes don’t do many "£100” burger runs, and often wish they had a second plane to do them.Grumman AA-5s are simple, good performers and fun to fly. They aren’t great at high altitude or on very short fields, but it doesn’t sound like you need that and they are more enjoyable for the kind of flying you plan than most four seat options. I have a friend who has a Lycoming equipped DA40 and its fine too, very efficient, but I find it uncomfortable and its handling is like a sailplane. He loves it anyway. Robins are attractive to me but with fabric wings you’d need to have a hangar identified, and equipping one for IFR is apparently a problem given no FAA type-cert, if IFR is a consideration.
Cherokees and 172s are very popular for a reason, but they are a bit boring.
Sound overall advise. Additionally, the “normal” advise is to purchase and airplane primarily based on what you need it for 80% of the time and still be able to perform (one way or the other) the reminder of the 20% with it – or simply rent for that other purpose. I have a “slow” Rallye (110-115kts TAS), primarily used for sunset flying and general f@ck around, and to be flight instructing. Occasionally I take the family cross country 5-6h flight (split with an overnight in a “nice” location). With noise cancelling headsets, the kiddo in the back and the weaker half in the seat next to me – that works. Having a relatively small investment (asset), but a solid aircraft with few ADs and simple enough maintenance needed, and a engine with low time (good condition) can bring you a lot of “good feeling” as well.
All good advice by Mooney Driver. And Peter is probably torturing his keyboard too as I write these lines 
Mooney_Driver wrote:
It’s quite important to know that avionic upgrades are much more cost intensive than an engine overhaul, which opposed to upgrades are a fairly known quantity.
Well, I guess you guys haven’t had an engine overhauled for quite a while, have you? You better brace for a shock when time comes…
If you have a budget for purchasing TB20 then go for it. It’s much more capable aircraft than C172 or C182 or anything similar. There’s nothing complex in flying TB20 comparing it with any other SEP – it’s just a SEP. Retractable gear might be a bit more sensitive to bad runways but it saves fuel and adds to speed. There are so many good runways that avoiding few bad ones won’t ruin your flying. The main issue is the condition of the aircraft you’re planning to buy and that’s where serious pre-buy check is needed.
Cost and capability is not the issue, fun is the issue to me. Most long distance planes are not very fun to fly, and are a pain to maintain. They do what they do, but its narrow focus flying.
If it were not for the European cross-border and IFR certification issues my starting point for this discussion would be an RV7A. Its fast while still being fun, climbs better than anything else being discussed here and is simple to own. The only non-regulatory issue may be having only two seats. The planes I threw out for consideration would go in the same direction but are EASA certified with four seats.
Silvaire wrote:
fun is the issue
No, it ain’t here. And not for most distinguished members here. And looking at the OP’s mission profile, neither for him… ok, now we could argue on the definition of fun in flying
Silvaire wrote:
Most long distance planes are not very fun to fly, and are a pain to maintain
In veritas alas. OTOH if the OP has the means, and the desire to own a complex SEP to go play airliner, why not? It might be his very idea of… fun 
The examples you describe seem way overpriced for what they are, but remember that dealers will often actually sell planes for WAY less than asking price. In my case I got a plane from a well known UK dealer for ~27% below the listed price with basically 2 emails worth of negotiation.
TB20 is a nice plane to fly and is one of the most comfortable SEPs available. Handling is nice in that it feels sharp and precise compared to a Cessna, with no rudder required in turns, and it’s very well mannered. It’s more fun to manoeuvre and zoom around clouds than a 182, with a better roll rate. It feels sporty compared to a Cessna or Piper. The bad bits are not well harmonised controls, with heavy ailerons and light pitch control. Also the controls use pushrods which reduces maintenance but the pushrods are just tubes with the ends squashed flat and a bolt through them. No rose joints as on say a diamond or RV (or any other plane with pushrod controls pretty much) so this means you can get really annoying play in the controls.
As you’ve seen from Peter’s trip reports it’s a great plane for touring around Europe and suits that job well, with a decent mix of range, speed and comfort.
I have only flown the GT model but it is usually he best looking plane on the apron, which is a factor IMO when spending so much on a toy. The GT cabin is really nice with alcantara headlining (about 20 years before it became cool again in cars) and comfy seats. It’s easy and practical to fly without a checklist as the placement of switches and controls lends itself well to using flows. You don’t have to reach awkwardly to grab anything.
The bits to be aware of are small wing and wheels means it isnt suited well to grass which rules out many, possibly most excellent destinations in the UK and possibly anywhere. A Cessna is a better all rounder in this regard. TB does like runway and initial climb is sluggish until speed builds, unlike a 182 which seems to elevate off the runway.
As for gear collapses, I’m sure Peter will be along to say that this is due to neglect and I’d have to agree. The TB gear is stout and as simple as it gets. You’d have to be really negligent to let the gear get to the point of failing somehow, but then there’s a reason that no one will work on a plane I own except me.
Not sure about the door opening thing. I think if the door opens it will probably tear off in flight, but I can close the door from being sat down and strapped in, at least on the GT which has handles in the top bit of the door. The door mechanism is secure so it shouldn’t randomly pop open like a Cessna.
Dan wrote:
OTOH if the OP has the means, and the desire to own a complex SEP to go play airliner, why not? It might be his very idea of… fun
My view is likely tainted by being around lots and lots of old Mooneys and Bonanzas that nobody wants very much. TBs are uncommon and don’t seem to get much use locally. People actually fly their less narrowly focused planes, although you do see Cirruses being used as the luxo-chariot of choice for people wanting mostly transportation.
A P-51 Mustang would do both, why not have it all? Just kidding. On the other my local friend who owns and flies a P-51 says a TB30 is better for most things including IFR, bigger and more complex is not always better. For reference, his choice to go places with family is a Lancair IV, he’s a 50-50 partner in that and the TB30.
Silvaire wrote:
Silvaire25-Oct-23 19:5914
Cost and capability is not the issue, fun is the issue to me. Most long distance planes are not very fun to fly, and are a pain to maintain. They do what they do, but its narrow focus flying.
This is commonly overlooked perspective – and in many cases for “fair enough” reasons. The world we live in is very much focused on spreadsheets and technical details, as opposed to “real life values”, such as fun-to-fly, easy to clean, simple mechanical components and things that make your “toy” unique.
Flying A-B-C in an aircraft with the latest and greatest in avionics and with and steady ready Auto Pilot is great – if that´s what you want from flying. I truly think the TB20 type (as mentioned by the OP) is a great machine – it´s good looking, it´s got performance etc. and it does the mission of A-B (as per specs and numerous reports). I don´t know about the maintenance side of the TB20 – but I´m let to believe it´s got quite a large number of components and quite a few ADs of noteworthy type (I could be wrong of course!), and so do a lot of other aircrafts.
I´d like to point out that unless money is of little concern, it is worth considering going well below the comfort zone (asset investment wise), and be able to worriless deal with the upcoming expenses, that inevitably comes with owning an aircraft (being it 10 or 50 years of age). It´s not like purchasing a “relatively” expensive (say 30 year old) TB20 is going to get you less maintenance costs, as opposed to to a 50 year old C172/PA28/DR400/RALL etc. that has had proper maintenance (and a lower time engine, prop. bla bla etc.).
Consider buying “small” (investment) now, and then upgrade later. I understand that it´s tempting to go straight for the gold medal, but it´s worth considering learning “the game” with a smaller investment and at the same time figure out what is really important. You can sell it and move on or out!
I want to one final time stress this. Flying is supposed to be fun and enjoyable – as Sivaire is pointing out. The aircraft handling (hands on flying) characteristics should be considered – does the airplane feel harmonious and balanced too YOU on the flight controls, and does its general handling characteristics appeal to you (eg. comfortable TO and landing performance characteristics). Does it have a comfortable glare shield panel layout that incentives VFR cross country. Do you trust the current (or are you going to upgrade) the avionics installations (Comms., Transponder, Basic Instrument T.. etc.). Does it have a fun weight to power ratio when you fly solo (short field TO and ldgs). Don´t overlook the fun factor and safe solid airframe in you search. I am NOT speaking against the TB20 (as I said).
My 21 years of TB20 ownership. Here are some trip reports which will show what it can do and remember the old saying “range is the best speed mod” and this applies especially in Europe, with its crazy mix of PN/PPR/100LL/general hassle.
Most of the negative items in the OP are incorrect in as much as being special to the TB20. And it does short sightseeing trips perfectly. AND you get great photos
Very few ADs. Somebody was really pulling your leg
What is isn’t good for is “farm strips”; it likes ~750m grass / 500m tarmac (MTOW, etc). But one needs to be careful to assess the “stakeholding” of the reporter: renters tend to care far less for the plane and are much more likely to do grass than owners. And very few people rent TBs.
TBs are rare in the US due to inept marketing by Socata in the US.
Anything much over 100k is overpriced for a non-GT. Try to get a GT if you can; lots of small improvements which are worth having.
IO390 wrote:
As you’ve seen from Peter’s trip reports it’s a great plane for touring around Europe and suits that job well, with a decent mix of range, speed and comfort.
That is quite obviously true
But the Venn Diagram between the needs of the OP and flying long distances across Europe is less clear. There is some overlap, but with local flying and two hour cross countries as the objective it doesn’t seem like a lot.
Yeager wrote:
I understand that it´s tempting to go straight for the gold medal, but it´s worth considering learning “the game” with a smaller investment and at the same time figure out what is really important.
That depends on whether your goal is to learn and understand about several kinds of flying and planes, then decide what you like based on experience, or to predefine your mission based on structured and limited experience and then stick to it. The latter is certainly cheaper, assuming disillusionment and aircraft-divorce doesn’t follow a big investment to create a ‘perfect’ plane based on the predefined criteria…
