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.
Last edited by Tinstaafl; 27th Feb 2013 at 16:42.