Can a turbocharger be retrofitted to turn it into a TB21?
For that sort of money you could get a modern Saratoga or similar with much more space, similar speed and glass.
I dont really get the appeal of an old TB20 with outdated avionics.
Can a turbocharger be retrofitted to turn it into a TB21?
No, sadly. About 10 years ago someone ( @placido ) proposed a group funded Tornado Alley STC, which would have cost about $200k, so easily fundable with a decent size group, but there were no takers IIRC.
So most people who want a turbo sell up and buy a TB21.
Whether the TA turbo would have been better than the one Socata use (no idea who makes it) is an interesting Q. I don’t believe a single TB21 has ever gone 1000hrs before changing cylinders, and that is one reason to buy a TB20 if it does the job.
For that sort of money you could get a modern Saratoga or similar with much more space, similar speed and glass.
“Modern” and “Saratoga” in one sentence? 
Sure there are plenty of 1950s/1960s planes with glass. The TB is 20-30 years younger.
I dont really get the appeal of an old TB20 with outdated avionics.
A TB20 is a really nice plane. The GT especially. I would buy another one, over anything else, regardless of money (talking sub-turboprop of course). But if you can spend a few M on a jet, of course there is no comparison. All SEPs are rather crude things… noisy, with lots of vibration. Some have quite a good range; the TB20 is 1300nm or so which beats most turboprops (not a TBM though).
The avionics one can throw money at, if one bought it at the right price to start with.
JasonC wrote:
I dont really get the appeal of an old TB20 with outdated avionics.
The avionics are not a big deal in the large picture. If you want, either a G500 and a new GTN can turn this thing into something not much behind a G1000 Saratoga, but I’d say it is considerably cheaper to operate. The TB20 has a very decent cabin size and is a good familiy plane, having a similar layout than a car and being a 5 seater. Also I think it has the better range than a Saratoga and is still considerably cheaper also to buy.
If I would have to upgrade this one, I’d simply exchange the GPS and both Navcoms for a dual GTN setup and possibly put an Aspen inside, moving the original FD and HSI to the right, but that is it. I would not know what more I’d ever need.
Peter wrote:
Modern” and “Saratoga” in one sentence? Sure there are plenty of 1950s/1960s planes with glass. The TB is 20-30 years younger.
Pretty sure it was made more recently than the TB20. I just think for the money we are discussing there are more modern and better airframes.
Sure; you can buy various 1950s/1960s planes, newly manufactured today.
As Emir said, this plane won’t fetch the asking price. It’s like that €240k TB20 advert. That one came down to 170k; not sure how much was actually paid, if it sold.
Peter wrote:
Sure; you can buy various 1950s/1960s planes, newly manufactured today.
Well the Saratoga and TB20 are both 1970s technology right?
Mooney_Driver wrote:
It needs 8.33 and a new GPS preferrably
Mooney_Driver wrote:
True but if it checks out ok, then there is not much wrong with that. Calendar limits are in most cases only a money making machine for overhaulers, not a necessity.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
In any case, if the pre-buy is ok, it is a very nice airplane with very low hours and TKS FIKI, not many of those around.
JasonC wrote:
Well the Saratoga and TB20 are both 1970s technology right?
And both of them are less sophisticated airframes than a Comanche, first flown in the 1950s. It’s the equipment that makes the difference in modernity.
That aside, I think it would be fun (if financially risky) to buy this TB20 and get it going. I did something similar in principle (but less financially risky) in buying a simpler 40 year plane with 850 hrs total time.
Peter wrote:
A TB20 is a really nice plane. The GT especially. I would buy another one, over anything else, regardless of money (talking sub-turboprop of course). But if you can spend a few M on a jet, of course there is no comparison. All SEPs are rather crude things… noisy, with lots of vibration. Some have quite a good range; the TB20 is 1300nm or so which beats most turboprops (not a TBM though).
I didn’t make my point properly. Nothing against TB20s but that of asking premium prices for an older airframe with older equipment just because it has low engine hours. I saw recently another very low time aircraft that the owner wanted a bit of a premium for. Once you updated the panel (even just to 8.33 and mode S) it was uneconomic. Engine problems can be often fairly cheaply fixed. Replacing avionics is essentially fixed price plus fixing whatever else they find.
