IO540 I really fail to see the logic.
Why is a TB20 superior to a Cirrus or Lancair equivalent in IFR conditions?
Ok, if you're saying there's no innovation, I might agree with that in the sense that the wings are still in the same place and you've still got that 1940's era design up front. Why would anybody want to put 1930s ADF technology into a 21st century aircraft in the first place? What we should have is GPS approaches to all our little fields in Europe so that we can utilize them, and the VOR / ILS systems to back it up.
In my mind they're all doing the right thing, we're just hanging on to all the old systems for some historic reason that really boggles my mind.
Yes, the Diamond may have lighter wing loading and a presently unreliable diesel but come on - are you saying a composite TB20 would be anything else than a TB20? What would you gain from it? Besides, retracting the gear on a Cirrus might give you 5-10 knots, at best.
I have not flown the TB20, only TB10, but regularly fly a Commander 114B, which is similar to the TB, sort of. The grass fields I fly into, 600m are not suitable for a fully loaded Commander and I suspect very much even a TB20 (the TB10 didn't like it much) so I don't really see the grassfields point there either (could be I need some education on the STOL capabilities of the TB
).
If you are talking innovation, I think the aim should be STOL, high cruise, low fuel consumption and GPS navigation with GPS approaches. Also add in roomy cabin, deicing equipment (I'm in Sweden) and a pressure cabin. All at 200kUSD please. Oh, I almost forgot it must burn JET fuel.
Is there a TB with these specs around the corner perhaps?