I have flown a TB10 and I must say that I absolutely loved the panel and the cabin. It was a world away from my PA28. Much more modern feeling. Very stable in flight and I expect that it would be great for IFR training or touring.
I also especially liked the nicely padded roof lining - on which my head permanently rested. 
To be fair, I am fairly tall and I don't have a lot of headroom in a PA28, but I do have some. I definitely would want a GT if I was buying a TB.
There are very few GTs other than TB20s or (a much smaller number of coming on the market) TB21s.
Having unsuccessfully looked for a newish TB10 back in 2001 or so I think it is because they became overpriced in the 1990s. A TB10GT was listed at about £150k in 2001 and CSE quoted somebody I knew £120k for a C172, reducing to ~£100k if he bought 3 (it was a school).
Obviously I am biased (TB20GT since 2002) but I would have a TB10 over any PA28 or a C172 - the cockpit is in a different class which is especially important if you are going to take "non aviation type" passengers, which for most people is a major attraction of flying.
Later models of TB certainly don't seem to come up for sale that often, though clearly there aren't that many around to start with. It looks like owners hang on to them and I can't say I blame them.
I agree that the TBs are a nicer place to be than a C172/PA28.
The fuel cock hidden behind the yoke is probably a feature of very early TB10s. Mine is in the same place as the TB20, on the centre console aft of the engine levers and near the headset jacks.
I find that the TB10 struggles to make book figures on performance. For me 105KIAS is the planning figure and it manages 110KIAS on a good day. Really depends where you set the levers. I was with an instructor recently who suggested there was no reason not to fly it oversquare (24" and 2,200rpm was suggested) in search of better performance. The fuel burn seems reasonable when leaned properly.
You won't get the same performance in the TB10 as you get in an Archer or C172 with the same engine, simply because the TB10 has a bigger cabin. There is no free lunch.
The PA28 brigade who I take flying in my aircraft often comment on the panel looking like a 1970s Renault, and not always in a nice way. I don't bite, but I'm left thinking "and a PA28 is modern, is it?".
The PA28 brigade who I take flying in my aircraft often comment on the panel looking like a 1970s Renault, and not always in a nice way. I don't bite, but I'm left thinking "and a PA28 is modern, is it?".
Indeed
The TB range is from the late 1970s so is positively ancient now, but it still is as modern as stuff gets - pre Cirrus. Just about everything else in the 2- or 4-seat category that flies would not look out of place in WW2, in terms of airframe shape.
However, I think that if you want a plane where you can kick everything with muddy boots, a TB is not the best choice because of the extensive use of trim material. Something more "agricultural" is then desirable. If I was to set up a syndicate with say 25 people in it (basically people looking for the cheapest possible flying) I would not do it with a TB.
Also if you want some significant avionics work done on a TB you need to choose the shop with some care. When I got my TCAS installed (£12k) the firm stripped a large % of the screws. The centre stack trim ended up jammed between the avionics stack and the windscreen, with the vertical card compass (which was forced up into the windscreen) damaging the windscreen eventually, before I noticed it. There is nothing difficult about working on a TB (so long as it has the two inspection covers at the base of the windscreen) but you don't want a complete chimp doing it.
Flew "my" 1981 TB10 again today for 2h. This time with a high power setting of 25"/2500 (as suggested in the book) and it made almost 120kt while burning 38.5l/h.
Compared to my C172M which does 105kt at 28l/h, that is 14% more speed at 37.5% more fuel burn. Fuel burn is supposed to increase with the square of the speed so a direct comparison would make me expect 28 * 1.14 * 1.14 = 36.4l/h. That is close and the difference probably due to the very large cabin.
Again, I have to concede that it is the most comfortable airplane I've flown so far (unless I have to sit in the back row which is far worse than a C172). Never had an aircraft that was so easy to land like the TB10. All my landings were close to being perfect (usually not my strength!), mainly because it maintains full aileron control until touchdown. It was a smart decision by Socata (or Aerospatiale I should say) to include a constant speed prop, this makes it so much easier to travel through turbulence as one doesn't have to constantly adjust the throttle. Thanks to that, the TB10 an be flown hands off without an autopilot.
So I've really gotten to like the TB. The shop said "fly it as you please, just return it with the tanks full". Well, they will be surprised when they see the logbook
PS: I now have three bruises on my head because the gullwing don't always stay open. I presume the oleo strut is worn out?
PPS: the prop lever is way too fickle. Normal or some adjustment issue with my TB? Really hard to adjust it properly compared to Cessna's vernier throttle.
unless I have to sit in the back row which is far worse than a C172
Really? Try getting out of the back of a C172 in a hurry, forced landing, ditching, etc. To me the TB looks a lot better in this respect, but then I've never actually sat in the back of either during flight.
I presume the oleo strut is worn out?
Ours will do the same, if the wind is from an unhelpful direction. Not sure if it is worn, or as effective as it was when it left the factory. Wouldn't like to see the price of new struts. Of course you could just replace them with much stronger struts from any old car, taken from a breakers' yard. But this is aviation, so you can't.
the prop lever is way too fickle
Try adjusting the friction control. Ours is quite notchy and hard to use, and if you have the friction control set too light it will tend to snap back to the high rpm position under spring loading.
Ours will do the same, if the wind is from an unhelpful direction. Not sure if it is worn, or as effective as it was when it left the factory. Wouldn't like to see the price of new struts. Of course you could just replace them with much stronger struts from any old car, taken from a breakers' yard. But this is aviation, so you can't.
There is a bit of a "story" on the door gas struts.
The originals, on all pre-GTs and on all ex-factory GTs, are 400N Stabilus units, off the shelf from any respectable Porsche dealer (such as Ebay) I believe
On the GT, the factory produced a mod kit, about €300, which replaces the 400N with a much more effective 600N Stabilus unit, but it needs a replacement attachment bracket, hence the price
On the pre-GT, you can take the 400N unit to a gas strut shop and ask them to pump it up to 600N...
However on the pre-GT I don't think the strut is really meant to support the door under all wind conditions. You do need to hold onto it while getting in/out. It's no different to a PA28 with a strong tailwind, etc.
BTW the reason for no crossfeed is that the tanks are below the fuel selector and if there was no fuel in one tank, you would be sucking up 100% air no matter how much there is in the other thank.
I took the TB10 up today with a very experienced flight instructor.
It was the first time in more than 3 years that I got sick piloting an aircraft. He ran me through an advanced program. It only lasted 45 minutes but I got both sick and totally exhausted.
First we did all kinds of stalls until the very end, not until it beeps or buffets but until it drops over a wing. That was OK but in one case. He had me do a 30° bank full power climbing turn to the left and asked me to increase the pitch until it stalled. This continued, always maintaining 30° bank until the TB10 suddenly and violently dropped over the right wing. It almost flipped on the backside and while I vaguely remembered that it can drop over the other wing, it came as a surprise. I think I was screaming... The instructor was happy. Never done this that far, usually instructors don't want more than the stall warning or buffeting.
Then (I was half sick already) we did a steep bank exercise, pointing the nose downwards for good speed and then turning alternatively with full aileron and rudder to the left and right until we had more bank I've ever done.
Now I was completely sick but no way I would ever admit this. We continued to do landings, normal, 1 notch of flap, no flaps and then two simulated engine failures.
Did I mention that I'm pretty exhausted? The TB10 handles beautifully.
