A friend of mine is sniffing on TB20s. He has read a lot about the model and is somewhat familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of the Trinidad. He is aiming at 1995 or newer.
However he is wondering if there are a lot of differences between the newer (GT) and the older versions? He is aware that there is increased headroom, retractable steps and bigger ailerons on the GT.
Which one is to prefer when considering that the newer one is a quite a bit more expensive? Any thoughts?
He has also read (in a Flying review by Dick Collins) that the TB is rocking when flown straight and level. Is it true?
Is the back seat comfortable for long trips?
Response from pilots/passengers with time in the TB20 appreciated.
I've had a TB20GT since new in 2002 and have about 1400hrs airborne time in it.
If you can afford the GT, it is advisable for a few big reasons and many little ones. I have never seen a clear list published but here is a start:
Basically Socata looked at the various niggles with the pre-GTs (none of which were admittedly major things) and fixed them for the GT.
And then, inexplicably, they pulled the plug on the whole thing 2 years later 
Also late pre-GTs and all GTs have the access hatches at the base of the windscreen. These totally transform access to avionics and you really want to get them. The lack of these is a cause for certain avionics fitters jacking up the labour quote 2x for all TBs, in ignorance.
He has also read (in a Flying review by Dick Collins) that the TB is rocking when flown straight and level. Is it true?
No; it's complete bull. I think I read that in a very old review too. He must have been smoking something. Or flying on autopilot with a couple of inches of slack in the bridle cables. The TB20 is rock solid.
Is the back seat comfortable for long trips?
The front seats are good enough for this (7hrs). I have a bad back but never had a problem in the TB. The back seat is actually better; it is thicker and definitely comfy.
retractable steps and bigger ailerons on the GT.
It is believed that the retractable steps were put in on the GT to make it fly at the same speed as the pre-GTs, despite the taller roof. Socata simplified the GT certification (massively) by keeping the old 1988 POH and calling the GT "Mod 151"
The ailerons are the same GT and pre-GT. There are some small changes on the elevator but nothing you will see from the outside.
The GT, if bought with the 3-blade prop which was fairly common, gives you a neat (optional) implementation of propeller TKS de-icing which is worth every penny.
Of course everybody thinks their plane is the best 
but I think the TB20 is great. Today, if you want a brand new smelling plane then you need to buy an SR22, but for the €150k which you will pay for a well equipped Grade A GT nothing will beat it, for a mission profile which is a mix of VFR messing around and occassional long IFR trips. It does FL180 easily, FL200 max (ISA, etc) and has a range of about 1350nm to zero fuel (~FL120) which is roughly southern UK to somewhere in the Sea of Crete.
It's also dead easy to work on. Parts are always easy to get and are no more pricey than ones for American planes. In fact much of the TB is American (engine and accessories, avionics, etc).
I wouldn't swap mine for anything - not even a brand new SR22.
A while ago I wrote up a rather long article on the TB20 - here.
I have been owning a 1992 TB20, a G1-model, for a few years now and have about 300 hours in it.
For me, it is a rock solid plane which perfectly suits my needs. I have only 3 hours in a G2-model TB20 so I cannot offer much insight by way of comparison but here are my 2 cents:
Which one is to prefer: I guess that depends on the available budget and whether you simply prefer a "younger" plane. Performance-wise, there is practically no difference between the two. From an avionics perspective you can get G1-models which have been upgraded with the latest avionics and G2-models with the standard King-instruments. Again, budget and preferences. Oh, and of course engine time and general maintenance status of the plane you might have in mind.
Rocking: I have not encountered any rocking nor have I heard of such problem before. Do you have this article by Dick Collins available? There are issues with a specific autopilot which some TB-owners have encountered (Peter is probably the foremost authority on this).
Headroom and back seats: I am 5 11 and have no issues with the headroom in the G1. However, the seating position in the TB is not as upright as in other airplanes. I think the marketing speak for this is a "sports car like feel". Personally, I find it rather comfortable, especially as the cabin is rather wide and one does not have to rub shoulders with the person on the right-hand seat all the time.
My longest leg being in the back seat of a TB20 was only one hour but I found that comfortable. When flying with passengers I limit the legs to a max of three hours anyway. So far, I had no complaints from passengers in the back seat about lack of room or comfort.
If you or your friend would like to contact some people who have significant experience with both G1 and G2-models I would recommend that you visit the site of the Socata Users Group (www.socata.org). It has a forum where your questions have been discussed before.
Most parts of the site are publicly accessible and registration in order to gain access to the restricted parts is free.
Hope this helps a bit.
There are issues with a specific autopilot which some TB-owners have encountered
The autopilot which has had the servo problems is the KFC225 but I don't think that ever had "rocking" issues, unless something was actually faulty.
The autopilot family which does suffer from what I might call reduced roll stability, and yaw/roll coupling, in turbulence, is the STEC range e.g. the 55X. This is because they use the turn coordinator as the roll reference, rather than using the AI. Recently I flew in an SR20 which had the 55X and even in very slight turbulence it was weaving around quite a bit. The King/Honeywell autopilots are rock solid in comparison.
Yes; the performance of the pre-GT and the GT is exactly the same. I have flown a 2B-prop ~1985 model (with a new engine) and it was doing exactly the same speed as mine i.e. 138kt IAS at 11.3 USG/hr.
What is the status of modern glass for the TB family in EASA-land?
The factory apprently offers a G500 upgrade but are any flying? What about Aspen?
RXH and Peter, thanks for useful info.
Rocking: I have not encountered any rocking nor have I heard of such problem before. Do you have this article by Dick Collins available?
Sorry, less than two weeks ago I threw away my entire Flying collection (complete 1994 -2000 and 2002-2003).
But I remember the article too. However, Robert Goyer too did an article on the G2 versus the G1 and praised both. Personally I’ve always liked the TB20 although I have no experience with it.
The only thing I would have liked is a little bit more speed but I guess you have to choose between Mooney efficiency and smaller cabin or a wide and comfy cabin with a little less speed.
What is the status of modern glass for the TB family in EASA-land?
The factory apprently offers a G500 upgrade but are any flying? What about Aspen?
I know of a few conversions to G500 in the US, owners seem to be pretty happy with the system. None in the EU that I am aware of. However, I obviously do not know every TB flying over here so there might be some installations.
Some Aspen-installations in the EU, though. I have an Aspen PFD and MFD in my TB20 and am very happy with them so far. There are three other TB20s in the EU flying with an Aspen PFD that I know of; there might be more. Also, several installations have been done in the US. Generally, people seem to be pretty happy with the Aspen but one early adopter in the EU has had some issues. This might have been a problem of the Aspen-unit itself or might also have been down to the way the installation was done by his shop. The support I personally experienced by Aspen was very good.
I saw a G500 equipped TB20GT at Tarbes in 2010. It looked very nice.
Socata developed the EASA STC for the G500 for the TB20 and they sell the design package to avionics installers. They quoted me €48k (probably plus VAT) for this, and it included installing a GNS430W. I think that price is very high!
The G500 is a technically elegant solution to the irritation of the KI256 vacuum AI, which is replaced by the GAD43 emulator module (I believe it is an ARINC429 to LVDT converter, which would be an interesting project). Aspen's equivalent is the EA100, I think.
As regards reliability...
It is very hard to get hard data, because these are current products, mostly in-warranty, and most owners are smart enough to not wash their dirty laundry on the internet, because they know they will get their throat cut by their dealer.
Informal surveys I read from the USA (with all the usual caveats e.g. people tend to complain about problems but rarely give positive feedback, etc) suggest that - across different aircraft types - the G500 has very roughly 5% long term long term unresolved issues, while the Aspen is running about double that.
The G500/G1000 products tend to be pretty reliable, while everybody I personally know with the Aspen has had problems. One owner has had about 3 total failures of the unit. My take on it is that it runs too hot (too hot to touch the back, according to reports) and it is just impossible to make a reliable electronic product when it is subject to such thermal cycling. Many years ago I used to build linear power supplies and we used to soak test them for days; we did everything we could, but they still packed up regularly. I see from the infamous Aspen factory video (infamous because if I had that kind of "operation" I would not be filming it) that they soak test them too; presumably to minimise infant mortality, but this only confirms they get a lot of infant mortality. Nobody is going to be soak testing stuff if nothing fails during the soak. Also one avionics man told me they have had loads of the EA100s fail. Aspen also had a very large % of the remote sensor units fail and at one stage the hugely inaccurate OAT readout was a joke which they would fix with a software update! Hard to know what to make of all this, because Aspen will gradually iron out the worst of it (they are universally described as very responsive when it comes to swapping stuff, although the exchange labour is not always covered), and many installers are incredibly incompetent. Personally I am avoiding any kind of "glass" cockpit stuff because I like separate avionics for ease of "management".
The only thing I would have liked is a little bit more speed but I guess you have to choose between Mooney efficiency and smaller cabin or a wide and comfy cabin with a little less speed.
Certainly. Every SE IFR tourer is boxed in by the 60kt max stall speed requirement, and thereafter by physics meaning there is no free lunch. It's all a compromise. The TB20 takes the compromise further than most in what I think is the most useful direction for this mission profile.
If you could increase Vs to 65kt you would gain a massive increase in payload, for free I understand Socata did this with the TBM700 C2 just by fitting four-point harnesses. The price they paid for that is that it had to be N-reg only, for a few years.
One US article is here. Bear in mind that practically all reviews were/are done with slightly dumb engine management.
Hmmm. I am discussing an Aspen installation as we speak. So far I am very impressed with how the company has behaved (quick responses, service minded, knowledgeable).
All owner reports I've read are confirming that they indeed run very hot. However, a dealer I spoke with said that most failures were "out of the box" failures and that the “big” year was 2011.
A twin sometimes has a little more space behind the panel and less vibrations since the engines are further away, so maybe I have better luck
PS! I’m going to show this post to my wife. “See honey, all that extra fuel burn isn’t for nothing”
What I heard from one guy who owns an Aspen, he had several "black outs" in flight after installation. He then traced the fault down to the remote sensor unit, which had developed a crack during installation and took on water. They fixed it by sealing it and it has not misbehaved since, so he is keeping the replacement unit as a stand by part. (Aspen sent out a unit to replace the cracked one, but he has kept the sealed cracked on in place so far as it performs perfectly).
Apparently quite a few failures of the Aspen units have since been traced to that.
I do hope the get it right as e.g. for my panel, the Aspen is the only viable solution to get it IFR under EASA. I have no space for all the additional stuff that needs to go into that panel, as the Aspen is a very economical way of replacing a lot of instruments with one, I don't have alternatives.
BTW, I was quoted installation of one at around 8k €, plus the unit. I was equally quoted for the G500 and the King EFIS, both of which would be around 40k € installed if everything goes well....
Frankly, what I'd prefer is to get a Dynon unit. But that is only allowed for non certified airplanes.
