Without wishing to refuel the Cirius debate, and having flown both, I think the TBM is a wonderful aircraft.
The one lesson I have learnt is that making any change to the specs. always cost far more than you would imagine so you are always better getting the options you want (if you can) – pay now, rather than pay more in the future – frankly it is true of most everything. So if it has everything you want – fine, if it doesnt, try and find something that has, otherwise you will only be disappointed and end up spending the money anyway – and a lot more.
As a total aside I still reckon more pilots should look at twins – the market has been really depressed for a long time for all the reasons that are well rehearsed. That is good news because they are so well rehearsed there are some amazing bargains – an Aztec sold recently for half this with glass panels and almost every option you could want. Not only does that translate into an awful lot of extra fuel and running costs for the price differential but you definitely do have a much more capable aircraft if that is what you want and are going to tour seriously. Run it for five years and you will be in the same financial position but with a bigger smile at the end.
Buying an airplane for personal use is already an irrational and emotional act of stupidity. So I would not attempt justifying buying a certain type of airplane with any rational arguments. For example, I wanted a retractable landing gear, because it looks cool. A low wing airplane that has its gear stick out just looks wrong to me. Does it make sense? No, but for me it did.
you definitely do have a much more capable aircraft
But is an Aztec with rubber boots really more capable than a TB20 with full TKS?
Full TKS is a really outstanding form of ice protection. Pilot reports indicate that it is almost impossible to ice the plane up badly enough, whereas boots have certain issues (e.g. bridging) in the “wrong kind of ice”.
It can be said that the Aztec will fly in icing conditions “indefinitely” while the TB20 will plummet after 1-2 hours when the TKS runs out, but neither represents a realistic scenario for European flying unless you are
Anecdotally, an Aztec will carry several inches of ice on the leading edges but is that really a case of sensible decisionmaking?
IFR flight in Europe is really climbing up to VMC and sitting there. Ice protection is nice but should be needed only temporarily.
Obviously a twin has the big advantage of a spare engine – no dispute there. An Aztec can also have radar which is a big plus, but again only if you are penetrating heavy convective wx embedded in IMC.
A non turbo Aztec has about the same ceiling as a TB20 i.e. FL180-200. Turbo (comparing with a TB21), about FL240. The former cannot outclimb most warm fronts and cannot outclimb most CBs anywhere. The latter can outclimb most warm fronts, just about, marginally. And both are similarly equipped for drilling a hole through a front; both needing equally fearless passengers.
Finally I don’t think one can compare a 30 year old aircraft with a 12 year old aircraft. A 30 year old one will be much cheaper to buy – as the 1982 TB20 mentioned above shows. But at what condition? There is an Aztec in “my” hangar which seems to be held together by goodwill… It’s a personal choice, of course. You can get a lot of value out of an old plane. But I think ultimately there is no free lunch and, over time, you will spend more on maintenance of an old plane so the two even out pretty well. One Aztec owner I know has openly posted that he spends GBP 20k/year (IIRC) on maintenance which is way way more than a TB20GT would cost you (again, comparing luck for luck 
)
I can’t speak for this seller obviously but I would not accept that offer. The whole issue of PRNAV in Europe is vague and may never become operationally relevant to light GA. For example, in the UK, last I heard they were talking about making the London TMA PRNAV but only to traffic going in or out of the London airports (Heathrow, Gatwick, etc) so irrelevant to GA. The KLN94 works fine for European IFR – see my trip writeups.
A KLN94 “works” but many of these things are about wants not needs. Also for many people now, GPS approaches are becoming more important in Europe – it isn’t just about PRNAV.
But is an Aztec with rubber boots really more capable than a TB20 with full TKS?
Well yes I think it is (RADAR is a massive thing to have) but I don’t think they are in the same market and hence a comparison is not really terribly useful.
It is not just about the boots, but there are few singles properly de-iced. I agree TKS works well, but making sure you have enough fluid is always going to be a pain, and you do get through the stuff. On the 42 I used the whole tank on one flight.
On the other hand something like an Aztec will have loads more carrying capacity – six adults quite happily and proper adults at that. OK, you might think you will never need it, until you do.
Then there is the whole extra engine debate – but I dont care what anyone says there are times when it just feels reassuring! Must be something to do with age.
Then there is the stablity issue – compared with pretty much any single, a twin will always feel significantly more rock solid, be it coming down the approach or in choppy conditions on the journey.
Finally, the nonesense of any aircraft of which perhaps we are all guilty to some extent. There are few singles that are as satisfying to fly as a twin and then I can only really think of aerobatic singles or taildraggers, the former for a different reason, and the latter because it seems to me they are always ready to catch you out.
I agree it all comes at a cost, but in fact like for like there are some really good twins around (hence my point) that having had a huge amont spent on them really getting them up together there is no reason why these will cost significantly more than a HP single especially given that they are pretty much fully depreciated and the difference in initial outlay covers a awful lot of fuel.
As I said just another point of view but I think twins are really unrated because the market is poorly understood and nearly everyone has signed up to the “site of the accident” rubbish, btw, while it might never happen, the first time you actually have an engine quit, however well the forced landing goes, I guarantee you will still be wishing you had had another engine if you have ever flown a twin. As you now my engine quit on an aircraft that was less than six months out of the factory, brand spanking new and with all the latest technology (in theory) but the engine still quit without any monkies having worked on it since it left the factory. So it is capable of happening however careful you are and it is always a shame to break the thing even if you avoid any bruises never mind it spoiling your outing.
The KLN94 is IFR approach approved – GPS/LNAV. It doesn’t do LPV or +V.
My longer term plan is to install 2 x IFD540 – maybe a year from now. I will be doing it mostly to land at Shoreham on the LPV they are talking about
The KMD550 is the best panel mounted box ever for VFR flying around Europe.
I didn’t want to turn this thread into a SEP v. MEP one either (well not too far ) but Fuji don’t you think the MEP you were then flying had a certain, ahem, reputation for flights with “interesting” engine issues? Back then, if I bought that DA42 (and I did seriously consider it) I would have definitely wanted an extra motor…
Peter – yes but I dont think anyone entirely knew the position that early on and to be fair I dont think the fleet has suffered that many total failures. Moreover the type of failure I had just could have occurred in any aircraft new or old. The previous time I nearly lost an engine was when the diaphragm in the injected system on a 180 Lycoming failed – or almost failed. If it had the engine would have stopped. It was the original engine with 800 hours on it. There was nothing that had been done that should have been done. Just one of those things. The specialist in American when I had the unit shipped to them said he saw around a dozen evry year with symtons between slight to alarming rough running and every so often an engine that stopped for the same reason. I think with any SEP no matter how well maintained an engine failure is possible.
Anyway many apologies for the thread drift, I thought that given the general context of the question if the OP hasnt completely settled on a TB this was a fair alternative to offer. We can do the old debate of twin versus single some other time
Sorry, Peter – but “flying in icing conditions for hours” is really not something anybody clever would do in any of our spam cans, aluminum or plastic. AFAIK there is not FIKI version of the TB20, and even if there was … wel,, old pilots and bold I guess.
If you want to “fly in icing conditions” for hours start thinking King Air and upwards. And eben then it’s no fun.
A G-reg TB20 is certified for flight in icing conditions.
I don’t know about F-reg, etc. The DGAC-approved POH should say.
“FIKI” is an FAA term (whose definition has varied over the years – see multiple threads here) and for FIKI you need (among other things) two alternators which nobody has ever done on a TB20, so an N-reg TB20 is not FIKI. But the actual anti-ice capability is the same.
Icing certification in single pilot flight (i.e. no co-pilot who under the AOC terms is required to report a transgression) is pretty meaningless in any scenario where there are no defined weather services with a defined forecast/actual product, a flight into which would constitute flight into previously known icing. IOW, all of Europe
I have been in icing conditions which if persisting for “hours” would coat a KA in 20cm of ice and increase its MTOW several times Anything like that just shows bad planning. IFR is a “tactical” thing – you play a game with the wx and with ATC, to get up on top ASAP. TKS gives you more options. Non-TKS, you have to be in VMC unless
If you have balls, the 0C level being well above the MSA gives you an escape route, but I wouldn’t plan a real flight from A to B on that basis (I know people who do).
(Edited!) Equipped with TKS for icing conditions and certified for known icing conditions are really two things.
I know that the difference is somewhat theoretical – but the equipment (I only know about the Cirrus, sorry) is very different for “Known Ice”: Windsheld sprayers, deicing of the vertical stabilzer are exaples. Also the TKS panesl are longer, extend around the edges of the horzontal stabilizer.
