The TB10 has a carb and maybe its POH says something different.
Nope, I don't have it to hand, but I'm pretty sure its at the top of the runup procedure.
TAS of course, IAS is a totally meaningless number other than Vs0/Vx/Vy etc
Thinking of moving into aircraft sales, Achim? 
In the PA28, the fuel selector is extremely well hidden (down low next to the rudder pedals)
Yes but you must think of the considerable benefits to the instructor, teaching a female student
That was one of the earliest things my first instructor told me about; the difficulty of having to lean right over her legs to check the, ahem, fuel cock...
Only the Cirrus placed it well, on the middle console next to the fuel gauges.
On the TB20 it is in the centre, between the seats, easily visible. No idea why the TB10 was done that way, given that it must mean running fuel pipes behind the instrument panel.
I can't see a technical reason for not having the cross feed
I suppose it is the lack of gravity pressure into the fuel selector.
Also a crossfeed removes the option to drain the LH tank a bit when flying solo (etc). Inability to do that introduces a 1-2 degree roll error (perhaps not in a high wing which "hangs down") which cannot be compensated using any trim, without causing drag. It's worth perhaps 2kt.
I've always considered this 'switch tanks right before t/o' to be stupid, dangerous and downright idiotic. Why would you want to start the most critical phase of a flight with an untested system? For that's exactly what it is, if you do the runup on one tank and then quickly switch. I rarely fly a/c that don't have crossfeed, but if I do, I start and taxi on one tank, then switch to the other and do the power checks on that. That tank also then is used for t/o and climb. If flying alone, this would be the left tank for the balance issues mentioned earlier.
Steep turns are remarkably easy, much easier than in a C182 which doesn't really like doing them.
Eh?? All the 182s I have ever flown were very happy doing steep turns! What does yours do that make you think it doesn't like them ?
I've always considered this 'switch tanks right before t/o' to be stupid, dangerous and downright idiotic. Why would you want to start the most critical phase of a flight with an untested system?
Yes but you don't do that (in a TB).
You do the power checks after switching the tanks.
Let's look at some figures.
Let's assume somebody has a really convenient setup with the runway holding point right next to him hangar.
The following is for a TB20.
Taxi time 1 minute, which fully leaned is ~0.04USG.
Power check time 30 secs, which at full rich is ~0.07USG.
So if you did not switch tanks at all, you have passed 0.04USG through the open fuel passage.
But if you do it IAW the POH, you have passed 0.04USG through one fuel passage and then passed 0.07USG through the fuel passage on which you are going to take off, which is obviously better.
In more real-world scenarios you have longer taxi times, which works against my argument, but you also have longer holding point waits, which works in favour.
Also the oil temp will never be in the green after such a short taxi etc. And one switches to the "flying" tank when at the holding point, then waits for the oil to warm up, and then does the power checks.
In any case, you have of the order of 3m of a pipe run, which for an ~6mm ID pipe is a fuel volume of ~ 0.02USG, so the power checks are more than good enough to suck out all the fuel in the system, all the way from the fuel tank.
In a real situation, the stuff at the runway holding point probably sucks out 5x the volume in the fuel system - even allowing for the fuel stored in the fuel filter.
It does however illustrate that rushing the power checks is not a good idea, especially if you may be departing with empty tank(s) 
I suppose it is the lack of gravity pressure into the fuel selector.
The cross feed is a separate system, all it needs is a tube between the two tanks, no matter how it is routed through the cabin. Cessna uses a separate tube for the cross feed.
Also a crossfeed removes the option to drain the LH tank a bit when flying solo (etc).
No, why? The Cessna fuel selector has 4 states: OFF / LEFT / BOTH / RIGHT. The cross feed line is blocked in LEFT / RIGHT positions and open in BOTH / OFF. That is a perfect system. Many FIs teach you to put the selector to LEFT or RIGHT before refueling to prevent fuel you just put in to travel to the other wing tank. In my experience, this is negligible as the crossfeed is rather slow. Most Cessna pilots think that OFF blocks the cross feed, do the test and ask around!
Eh?? All the 182s I have ever flown were very happy doing steep turns! What does yours do that make you think it doesn't like them ?
The 182s need fine input to maintain the bank rate and more importantly the altitude. I can manage that quite well nowadays (although an IFR flyer hardly needs this). In the TB10 it was dead easy, just choose the bank and let it fly its circles. Very different from the Cessnas. Maybe I got this impression also because in a high wing aircraft one mainly sees his own wing?
Thinking of moving into aircraft sales, Achim?
Yeah, I know that one uses TAS to show how fast the airplane is and IAS to show how low the stall speed is. But let's face it, IAS is an incorrect metric, it is so because the hardcoded formula "ram air pressure - ambient pressure = airspeed" only works at a fixed altitude for which the instrument was calibrated. We use IAS because for decades there was no affordable way to directly display the TAS. Nowadays, that's easy to do. My Aspen shows it all the time and it is the real number I'm interested in because it's also what the performance diagrams in the POH use and why would I be interested in a speed that isn't actually my speed? Explain that concept to a car driver...
In any case, you have of the order of 3m of a pipe run, which for an ~6mm ID pipe is a fuel volume of ~ 0.02USG, so the power checks are more than good enough to suck out all the fuel in the system, all the way from the fuel tank.
I have a Robin Tiara which probably has a different fuel system, because I also have a substantial fuel filter housing + electrical fuel pump chamber + engine fuel pump chamber + fuel distributor. All of which holds several times the volume in the pipes. If I have run a tank dry (or it unported) on the previous flight, then refuel and use that tank, then I will easily have enough fuel to do power checks and start the take off run before the air hits the engine driven fuel pump. If I know I have air in one of the 4 tank lines then I will clear it in the air, not on the ground, which would stop the engine (with all the hassle that would involve). Even at cruise power it seems to take a long time for the air bubble to reach the engine.
But if you have started the engine on a tank, with priming, then taxi, then power checks you can be dead sure you've no air in the system on that tank at least.
Peter
The first 2 lines of my last post are obviously from your post 14. For some reason the quote didn't work - probably finger trouble!
Ted
[done - to quote a paragraph, just put a > at the beginning of it - Peter]
Low altitude IAS is however a good way to simply compare two planes.
High altitude (TAS) comparisons favour turbocharged planes, but usually the altitudes picked for the sales figures involve altitudes at which oxygen procedures start to get a bit impractical.
Low altitude IAS is however a good way to simply compare two planes.
Is that how you would compare the Citation Mustang to the Embraer 100? Or the Airbus 320 to the Boeing 737?
Airplanes have to be compared at where they make sense. Flying a TR182 at 5000ft does not make sense, using a Meridian for sightseeing makes even less sense. My sweet spot for the TR182 is FL150. It gives me good economy, is fairly quick to reach and while I need oxygen, I will not be dead in 30s should the oxygen system fail.
I am guessing cross feed is reserved for twins for (a) cost/simplicity reason(b) reducing fire hazard in a forced landing (most twins require cross feed off for take off and landing?) (c) other engineering reasons
