Yes, that one is a good example. Like I said, it’s much less of an aircraft, but avionics may not matter THAT much if doing sightseeing / short flights less than 2 hours.
With both models, because of low volumes there are never many for sale at a given point, so if you want to buy quickly you have to do with what’s available. But even the two TKS TB20s don’t necessarily seem that attractive: despite being much more expensive, one of them has no standby horizon if I’m not mistaken (to me that’s a deal-breaker for IMC, and seems surprising in a TKS aircraft). The other looks really good but is again very expensive upfront.
Of course, if you feel like a 177 could be limiting (in terms of capabilities / aesthetics), and you have the budget for it, I don’t think you can go wrong with a TB20. I was just pointing out that it may be a bit overkill for the described goal. We’re talking 50k+ difference in upfront cost, potentially an increase in running costs too (very roughly you could say that +50% cylinders gives +50% fuel an maintenance costs).
Emir wrote:
Have you ever compared it in real life? For me real life numbers are (measured at same TOM and similar wind):
- tarmac ground roll 390m
- grass ground roll 630m
I’ve not measured, no, but I regularly fly from a 630 m grass strip and I can’t say I’ve seen noticeably shorter takeoff rolls on tarmac. (10-20% wouldn’t be noticeable unless you actively measure, while 50% would.)
But I guess it depends on rotation speed, wheel size, tyre pressure etc. I would guess your DA42 rotates at higher speed than most SEPs.
You won’t get a TKS TB20 for the stated budget – unless a lot of stuff is dud, starting with the TKS 
I fly IFR around Europe very happily with a KLN94+KMD550, not even a GNS430, so you don’t need new avionics to use the plane with a completely full IFR mission profile. And stuff like a 2nd AI is cheap – a few k at most even if you have to have one installed by a Part M outfit. The TB has plenty of locations in the panel.
For a novice to ownership, #1 is to get a plane which is reliable, because taking a plane to a company all the time is going to be VERY expensive. That is of course exactly why most hangars in Europe ban work being done inside: using a freelance mechanic saves a huge amount of money! But we have done this topic – which is absolutely central to whether you will enjoy GA – many times and always the same people pop up saying they can do it where they are based 
One aspect that hasn’t been mentioned so far is your size @Parthurnax. If you haven’t done so yet, go and sit in some of the contenders and see how comfortable you are. While the TB20 certainly is a good choice, at 6’2” / 188cm I find it a bit cramped.
The GT has maybe 10cm more headroom.
Peter wrote:
You won’t get a TKS TB20 for the stated budget – unless a lot of stuff is dud, starting with the TKS
Yeah so two of those that are on the market (one at 1600 and one at 1750 hours with original engines) at the moment have TKS and fairly decent avionics. I guess you think 170k is a bargain then?
I could afford more, but would only spend more for something that is really clean and with no likely issues.
Peter wrote:
I fly IFR around Europe very happily with a KLN94+KMD550, not even a GNS430, so you don’t need new avionics to use the plane with a completely full IFR mission profile
Tbh I’d be perfectly happy with a GNS430 or 530. Would ideally like WAAS given how many GPS approaches are popping up these days, but could live without.
Peter wrote:
For a novice to ownership, #1 is to get a plane which is reliable, because taking a plane to a company all the time is going to be VERY expensive. That is of course exactly why most hangars in Europe ban work being done inside: using a freelance mechanic saves a huge amount of money! But we have done this topic – which is absolutely central to whether you will enjoy GA – many times and always the same people pop up saying they can do it where they are based
Yeah this is the case at the hangar I was looking at. They are happy to give hangar space (when available) under the condition that all work is done by the company. I could probably find hangar space elsewhere, but have heard good things about Shipping so I guess at least would get good work done (from what I have heard). If you have any specific suggestions you don’t want to share on here can also DM me.
172driver wrote:
One aspect that hasn’t been mentioned so far is your size @Parthurnax. If you haven’t done so yet, go and sit in some of the contenders and see how comfortable you are. While the TB20 certainly is a good choice, at 6’2” / 188cm I find it a bit cramped.
I am 175cm, so hopefully should be OK :)
I owned and flew a 1976 C177RG EASA-reg for 8 years and 800hrs.
Cabin is not as wide as a TB20, but is higher and much easier to get in and out of. It is probably the best certified SEP from that POV. In fact a lot of wheelchair pilots use it in the US.
Mine used to cruise at max 150KTAS at FL80 but it did have high-compression pistons. A powerflow exhaust or an IO-390 (vs IO-360) , both popular mods, would have similar effect.Lots of STC’s and mods available for upgrades.
1000lbs UL unless carelessly modified.
Will carry same or more load than a comparable TB20 for the same range, but the TB20 will fly further.
Dont get the 50USG models, get the later 60USG fuel cap.
The RG will give you much longer legs than the FG, and running costs will be similar.
The sparAD is a pre-requisite for buying.
We flew grass, mountain, transatlantic, polar, IFR…but avoided ice.
Any q’s let me know.
Antonio wrote:
C177RG
and I recall this Cessna type as having quite nice handling (harmonisation/control forces/stability)… for a certified aircraft that is
A good 140-145KTAS was doable with the standard engine.
Dan wrote:
nice handling (harmonisation/control forces/stability)
Indeed, in my opinion the best of Cessna SEP’s from that POV, out of 152, 172, 182 and 210 that I have sampled
Yes, but the wheels are still small, so it isn‘t good for soft fields.
