A TB20 comprehensively outclasses a TB10 in performance, range, and consequent mission capability.
The practical range, taking into account realistic reserves etc, is about double, for example.
The only thing they have in common is the airframe and the general layout, which is very nice. It's a great "passenger friendly" plane, matched only by the SR22 or the DA42, among the mainstream types.
I bought a brand new TB20GT (one of the last ones made) in 2002 and it was a great decision. It's great for decent long trips like this.
What I didn't like for the TB10. Same fuselage as the TB20 so those items are common. Wrt performance there's no substitute for HP but if the basic airframe is HP hungry then you're still stuck with less performance for what is installed compared to some other airframes.
* Inside door handle positioned in exactly the right place to annoy my knee.
* Seat couldn't go back far enough (I'm 6')
* Poor ventilation. One(!) eyeball vent per person. In summer. In Oz. Can taxi with the door unlatched but awkward & heavy to hold onto.
* Lots of glass - including a fairly heavily raked windscreen - makes the a/c a greenhouse.
* Unpleasant control harmony. Heavy in roll, rather light in yaw. The control column is highly geared because full throw needs to be limited to give room for your knees/thighs.
* Awful vis. over the nose for a flapless landing.
* Glides nearly as well as a brick.
* Uncomfortable seat.
* Lacks headroom. I had to slump a bit. I believe there's a mod. or option for a lower seat. Must do wonders for vis. over the nose...
* Slow for the HP. A bit over 120kts at 75% power on book figures. For a 180 HP engine. A C172RG does more than that on ~65%.
* Not exactly a short field a/c.
* Instrument panel sectioning uses up valuable panel space unnecessarily compared to a large flat expanse. A problem if you want to add more avionics although modern Garmin 430/530 reduce this problem by combining more functions into one unit..
* Trim wheel design is unpleasant after prolonged use.
* We were always having problems with the fuel & RPM gauges, and I seem to recall some issues with the switch breakers too. This was across a brand new fleet of 24.
Can't remember my other gripes with the type. It was over 15 years ago since I last flew one.
I would not agree with most of the above, and e.g. a C172RG can't be compared with a TB10. Features such as "Lots of glass" makes is a super plane to fly compared to normal "spamcans". Re the seats, I've sat in them for 7hrs a number of times, no issues, but could not spend 7hrs in any chair or any car seat. Short field? TB20 gets off in 350m or so.
Well what Tinstaafl really required, and desired was a Beech Bonanza
All of those gripes would have been wiped out, and replaced with a very large smile.
Seriously though, that list was like the comparison of the Rockwell Commander 112, and the 114. Different aeroplanes, but with a lot of common features.
The issue with comparison discussions such as these, is that for each person, and their mission profiles, each airframe type, will throw in areas of personal taste and performance measures.Whilst I love my aeroplane, obviously there are other types on the market, that would perform better in certain areas. It is the trade off between all of the factors, useful load, performance, field specific performance, cost, maintenance factors, cost included etc, etc.
Also the look of the thing. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, allegedly.
I think the world would be an awfully boring place if everybody wanted to spend their hard earned cash on the same things - I prefer the luxury of enjoying other people's choices without having to make them my own! And I hope likewise that they could enjoy what I like to spend my money on.
The problem with Bonanzas for me, in my brief experience, is the ergonomics. A bolt upright bus driver's seat and neck bent over 15 degrees to clear the roof. They're solid otherwise, but kind of dull. Mooneys are just plain small, but the engineer in me likes them the best - their design says 'speed's what matters, its an aircraft not a Rolls Royce'.
The Rockwells and Socatas are a bit too decadent for me, seemingly shaped to fit over-sized occupants, not shaped by the air, but that's just me.
I like the perverse one that's an antique aircraft disguised to appear modern, built by a few guys in Minnesota, having interior fabric selections so 70s they hurt, but still with the undeniable sense of design by a (long since dead) Italian who made really cool things decades before the others came along... You can sense that just sitting in the 'driver's seat'. I want one someday
Its quite an elaborate deception, eh?... Especially so given the Viking's tube and rag fuselage and wooden wing. All the disadvantages of a modern aircraft and an antique rolled into one That said, Giuseppe and pals had the basic design in production ten years and one world war before the Bonanza showed up. They're just cool...
How about a Cardinal RG for the OP? Its got a practical four cylinder O-360 like the Mooney, but lots of room. Sexier than a fixed gear mid-70s 182, which would be the most rational choice as BPF says.
I also like the 177RG for the performance and room and relatively low cost compared to other models like Beechcraft and Mooney. One can be had for under 100k in great condition and cruise all day at 140kts which is decent for the space and load. So for a first plane to build up few hundred hours to get lowered insurance rates before moving up, its a decent first plane. I can get checked out for my complex/high performance endorsements this summer after passing the PPL checkride too
Mooney will be cheapest on fuel and are fast but cramped.
Beech is an entirely different machine. Sturdy platform.
TB20 is an interesting airplane.
c182 I personally do not like .. Flown it a few times. It is big but not wide enough for me and landing it is entirely different than landing a c172. and it is slower than all above.
You should look at the SR22 as well. A lot of plane and fast!
I looked at all of them and found I could only fit in the SR22 and the Commander114. I went for the last because it had better reviews than the SR22 .. especially when flying slow. I got it the day after I got my PPL. I had to fly 25 hrs under supervision for the insurance and used that to master hp and complex and the fact that everything simply happens a lot faster. I then went on for IR and now CPL.
Commander 114 is a fantastic plane, very comfortable , very stable platform and reasonably fast. 150ish kts.
Whether an aircraft is in current production (or supported by any current company) is not a huge factor for privately owned aircraft on N-register... Aircraft last a very long time, usually outliving their manufacturer. Engines, brakes etc are common to many types and used parts are almost always available. The trickiest parts issue for long out of production types typically seems to be landing gear components, but they don't wear too much.
I've never owned anything that's had parts support within the previous 4 decades.
I own a Beech twin and have some knowledge about the Bonanza. It's an amazing airplane but can be a little demanding at first, and not very forgiving.
It picks up speed very fast if you point the nose just a little down and if you bank (lets say in IMC) it just continuous to do so and maybe add a little bank by itself.
Having said that, I have several friends that got their IR and CPL in a Bo.
Personally, I would go with the 201. It's a lot of airplane for the money and no one comes close to the speed on the same amount of fuel. If you have the coin, go with the Bo. Just be sure you get one that have been maintained properly. If not you'll be in for some serious spending and down time. The best source for info on the Bo is beechtalk.com.