Which aircraft to buy? TB20 looks good, but...

Switzerland has loads of ~500m hard runways and has loads of TB20s based there. I’ve been to Wangen-Lachen too.

The problem with “grass” is, yes, more drag, so you need more distance, and usually one adds 50% i.e. 500m tarmac is more like 750m grass (unless very smooth and short).

But the biggest problem with “grass” in real-life ops is that grass fields which you are not personally familiar with are simply dangerous from the POV of potholes, rocks, sometimes crazy-tall grass, mud, etc, and if your plane is damaged you will get this

and you have a real problem! So, renters tend to be ok with it

Do we know the budget here?

That just means that whatever your budget, you need to keep plenty of spare cash for maintenance surprises.

Peter wrote:

The problem with “grass” is, yes, more drag, so you need more distance, and usually one adds 50% i.e. 500m tarmac is more like 750m grass (unless very smooth and short).

The POHs I’ve seen say 10-20% if the grass is short. (If it is not, then of course the increase can be arbitrarily large.)

I would also suggest taking a look at the 177. From what I’ve read:

• better suited to short hops / grass trips / messing around
• high wing, no struts: great for sightseeing, especially in the rear seats
• easier to maintain than a 6-cylinder (probably; there’s the whole thing about single-shaft dual magnetos…); easier than any turbo for sure
• looks a lot more modern than a 182 – even though not as modern or good-looking as a TB20
• should be a lot cheaper than equivalent TB20 (especially if it already has the right avionics; with upgrading mileage may vary)
• as spacious (if not more) than a TB20; easier to get into; but the in-flight comfort might be slightly worse because of the very large doors, and how (reportedly) difficult they are to windproof
  The main downside compared to the TB20 is speed and range. If more speed is needed, the RG version could get you near 150ktas (although don’t take my word for it) which is not that far off a TB20, and can still do short grass fields just fine.

It’s much less aircraft of course, but considering the initially stated “mission profile” I think it fits better. If you’re unlikely to push further than 1-2 hour flights, the non-RG seems to fit really well. If you think you may do longer flights and more cross-country in the future, the RG also works well.

I would also suggest taking a look at the 177

Yes, the Cardinal is also a good suggestion IMO, and particularly for the OPs use a fixed gear variant. Improvements were introduced though the years of production, e.g. constant speed prop on the fixed gear plane, if that’s what you want, so newer in this case is generally better. The very first year had 150 HP and is underpowered.

The FG version otherwise has the parallel valve 180 HP engine while the RG has the heavier 200 HP angle valve engine. Both are four cylinder engines and both are fine but the parallel valve O-360 is the most practical engine that one might suggest for this service, and is also BTW used on the Grumman Tiger.

This AD applies, which is a complicating factor for the 177.

The POHs I’ve seen say 10-20% if the grass is short.

Have you ever compared it in real life? For me real life numbers are (measured at same TOM and similar wind):
- tarmac ground roll 390m
- grass ground roll 630m