Some stuff written here is true, some is a myth.
The interior is a bit hideous
That's a matter of opinion
I would argue that the interior of a TB (and note that the design goes back to about 1980) looks more modern than the average spamcan, and most non-aviation people seem to agree. It has a "designed" instrument panel, whereas Cessna/Piper went for a flat plate in which you cut out holes and screw in the instruments.
Most people
inside GA are conditioned to the C/P way of doing things and tend to regard the TB cockpit as a bit weird but it's actually very nice to fly with.
For performance data, no good asking here. You need to look at the data! There is a takeoff perf chart in the actual plane's POH. Consult that, no pprune
The VP prop is a virtually insignificant extra cost, on the scale of aircraft operating costs. This is another enduring GA myth. When I was on G-reg, I estimated about £3/hr and that was a 3-blade £10,000 prop on a TB20, on a Transport CofA. You recover that cost easily in extra performance and thus extra range, etc - in the same way one recovers any extra maintenance costs of retractable gear several times over in the fuel savings.
That said, an old dog of a TB10 is an old dog, just like an old dog of a C172. If it has been badly treated and parked outdoors all the time, and worked on by monkey engineers, the plastic instrument panel parts will look very knackered, whereas on a Cessna/Piper nobody would notice that because they all tend to look knackered anyway (with everybody having to climb over the P2 seat, in a PA28 for example).
Edit: there is a reasonably good and active (if mostly American-populated) Socata user group at
www.socata.org