TB20 v 114B v SR22

[marioair]

For the following, how would you compare the 3 a/c

Assuming same purchase price
Capable of 4 adults plus fuel to tabs
IFR/PBN/Airways touring (none FIKI and Turbo variants)

Discuss.....

[n5296s]

I don't have significant experience in any of those types. But I'm curious why you don't include the 182RG, which will certainly go head to head with the TB20 and I think also the 114B. The SR22 is significantly faster than any of these. But it's a Cirrus.

[TheOddOne]

I've not flown the SR22 but I have flown the SR20. I've flown the TB and the Rockwell.
I'd be surprised if you could find a SR22 for the same money as a TB20 or 114B.
As with marioair, I'd separate out the SR22 from the other 2.
Both the TB20 and the 114B are metal aircraft with retracting gear and manually adjusted propellers.
The SR22 is plastic with an automatic prop.
I would imagine the fuel burn to be about the same for all 3, with the Cirrus coming out a bit more fuel-efficient due to higher speed.
I found all 3 to be more comfortable to sit in and operate over a 2-hour sector than a 'cooking' PA28 or C172.
The Cirrus has fixed gear, whereas the other 2 have the possibility of landing wheel-up.
The Cirrus needs a new parachute and rocket every 10 years at £10k. The other 2 need extra maintenance (cost) to keep the wheels coming down.
Both the TB and the 114 I have flown have 'legacy' instrumentation with add-on GPS and autopilots. The Cirrus I've flown have Garmin Perspective.
With the 'legacy' stuff, the initial transition from a typical training aircraft isn't too hard as you can fly basic VFR to get used to the aircraft before getting more adventurous with IFR flight. With the Cirrus, you need to do a comprehensive ground school course in a dedicated simulator, then a bit of flying with a type-current instructor. Flying with an instructor familiar with the particular kit in all 3 aircraft is essential before going touring. Beware legacy autopilots.
The Cirrus takes up more room in a hangar, due to its wingspan. It is also really awkward to move about in the hangar due to its castoring nosewheel. This might take some getting used to when taxi-ing. Get some time in an AA5 to learn how. It's great when you get it.
No noseleg will take a lot of abuse, but the Cirrus seems more fragile. The mains seem very sturdy, designed to take the impact of a parachute let-down. I wouldn't operate a Cirrus from grass. The spats are really tight on the wheels.
The Cirrus has a reputation for being more difficult to land. In my experience, it's all about being ahead of the aircraft and getting the speed on final absolutely nailed. I've witnessed a horrendous landing accident with a Cirrus (too fast, enormous bounce, failure to go around, prop shattered and noseleg collapse on 3rd bounce). This rather put me off, but lately I've had an opportunity to do some flying in one and with proper training and discipline, the Cirrus is no more difficult than the other 2.
The biggest difference for me was the instrumentation. For the Cirrus, it's essential to get proper training and to use the autopilot in the cruise. I wouldn't want to hand-fly a Cirrus for a protracted period in IMC, whereas I've done 2 hours in IMC hand-flying the 114B. Very stable in pitch.

Hope this helps

TOO

[India Four Two]

I've flown an SR22, mainly out of interest to see how the instrumentation worked. All of the cruise flying was done using the autopilot, but I did three takeoffs and landings and an ILS and go-around, which was flown by the autopilot with me adjusting power to stay on the glide slope - there is no auto throttle.

I found it very easy to fly on both takeoff and landing. I felt I would only have needed an hour or two of upper-air work and circuits to be completely comfortable. The instruments, on the other hand, were a different issue. My instructor said it usually took at least 10 hours to become at home with operating the systems.

I thought it was a very nice aircraft but I don't think that if I had the money, I would invest in one.

[VictorGolf]

Flown a lot with a chum who has a Commander 112 and he loves it, although it is quite maintenance heavy. However the 112 is not a four pax plus bags and fuel aircraft. Probably worth checking the 114 will do that mission.

[mjohansen]

Peter from euroga has written a nice page about being a TB 20 owner.
Socata TB20 Trinidad

[Jonzarno]

For the Cirrus, it's essential to get proper training

Quite right, this is very important. Cirrus offer a free transition training programme called Cirrus Embark which is available to anyone buying a used Cirrus from any source (i.e not only if you buy from Cirrus).

[marioair]

They key requirement was “for the same money” which one.

ive ruled out the 114.

so I think it’s a G1/2 SR22 Versus a 2000+ TB20/21

wildcard option is a 1998+ PA32r

[TheOddOne]

wildcard option is a 1998+ PA32r

The PA32 is a most excellent aircraft if you've a need to carry more people and/or baggage. It's a bit overkill if you were looking for a 4-place aircraft. Most PA32s were made with fixed gear, for simplicity and ruggedness. Watch out for the loading. You need to do
2 weight and balance checks per flight, as the C of G can move outside limits during the flight as the fuel burns off.
My one word of warning - stay WELL AWAY from the T-tail version - it's got really horrible handling on the approach and landing. The other Piper a/c to stay well away from is the P28R Arrow VI - also with a T-tail. Other versions of Piper singles with the low tail are OK. If you want a 4-place aircraft that's a bit narrower than the PA32 but nonetheless a good tourer, you could do worse than the Dakota, with a 6-cylinder Continental, a lovely smooth engine with much less fuel consumption than a IO540.

I'd still vote for a TB20 - just don't join the 'wheels-up Wilson' club.

TOO

[marioair]

Originally Posted by TheOddOne

The PA32 is a most excellent aircraft if you've a need to carry more people and/or baggage. It's a bit overkill if you were looking for a 4-place aircraft. Most PA32s were made with fixed gear, for simplicity and ruggedness. Watch out for the loading. You need to do
2 weight and balance checks per flight, as the C of G can move outside limits during the flight as the fuel burns off.
My one word of warning - stay WELL AWAY from the T-tail version - it's got really horrible handling on the approach and landing. The other Piper a/c to stay well away from is the P28R Arrow VI - also with a T-tail. Other versions of Piper singles with the low tail are OK. If you want a 4-place aircraft that's a bit narrower than the PA32 but nonetheless a good tourer, you could do worse than the Dakota, with a 6-cylinder Continental, a lovely smooth engine with much less fuel consumption than a IO540.

I'd still vote for a TB20 - just don't join the 'wheels-up Wilson' club.

TOO

i don’t believe the 1998+ models had the t Tail. And it would be the Saratoga not the Cherokee 6.

[A and C]

Performance wise you can’t slide a cigarette paper between the TB20 & 114B, they are both very capable aircraft that are not difficult to fly.

The SR22 is also a nice aircraft, I don’t buy the “difficult to land” thing it is a bit different but nothing a competent PPL could not quickly master.

If I was in the market for this class of aircraft I would go for the 114b as I find it marginally nicer to fly than the other aircraft and I have an aversion to dealing with the French when it comes to spare parts.

on the whole the decision will come down to personal preferences as in all other departments the aircraft are so equal.

[Jonzarno]

The SR22 is also a nice aircraft, I don’t buy the “difficult to land” thing

I have done almost 1500 landings in an SR22 with no problems. The one thing you need to watch out for is the torque effect if you add power too abruptly if you need to abort and go round: you need to balance using right rudder. As far as the landing itself goes: as long as you fly it by the numbers it isn’t hard at all.