I agree the TB interior is easily "dated" in the way that a lot of today's cars will look awfully dated in 5 years' time. But you get a very ergonomic layout in a GT
which beats most Piper/Cessna layouts which tend to be rather haphazard, especially by the time they have been upgraded to something from the 1990s
TB20 strong points are
- great looks
- great range
- best MPG for the cockpit size
- human-friendly cockpit
- great performance - 155kt TAS at FL080-140, ceiling FL200 which gets you above 99% of non-frontal weather
- easy to work on
- easy to obtain parts (
some are pricey but that is true for most "advanced" planes)
- the most reliable gear on the retract scene
- good short runway capability for the type (500m tarmac is easy)
- a very stable IFR platform
- normally-aspirated engine, 250HP, makes TBO in most cases
Downsides will depend on your usage. Avionics installers hate the hard to get to centre stack (especially those who don't know where the screws are). For night ops on unlit taxiways, the LH-only taxi light is near-useless for turning right; an added RH light is possible but involves a lot of paperwork.
But there is a reason why, after 10 years of ownership of a TB20GT from new, I have no desire to change. And I could buy an SR22 anytime, which goes a bit quicker, burns quite a bit more juice to do it, and has a chute
But I actually prefer the TB20, for my "mission profile" which is UK messing about with an occassional long foreign trip. The only realistic upgrade is a Jetprop but one would not be doing the messing-about in that, so a more long range mission profile would be needed, and that is why I don't have a Jetprop already.