Socata Reviews ?

[loewy]

Hi all,

I am looking to buy my first airplane and would like an entry four-seater with as few bells and whistles as possible to keep maintenance cost down while I build hours before buying the Bonanza (!). In principle, I'm definitely thinking fixed gear & fixed prop but probably IFR equipped since I am planning to go for that in the short- to mid-term.

PA-28, C172 and Socata Tampico seem to be the options.

Any place I can find reliable reviews to help make my choice, in particular regarding the Socata (the idea of owning a European a/c is appealling). I'm thinking about flight characteristics, consumption, maintenance costs, reliability, etc...

For the record, I have been trained on a Beech Skipper which I find truly excellent (wish it came with four seats).

Thx for all tips and good landings,

L

[aluminium persuader]

Flown them all, the Tampico gets my vote. Much more roomy than PA28 & I'd say better built. Instrument panel is also a good modular design which (If I remember correctly)doesn't involve removing absolutely everything to sort one instrument. It's also got two doors (100% up on PA28!) and is more comfrotable that the Cessna.

[loewy]

Thanks for your quick reply, aluminium.

Do you know of any detailed reviews of the Tampico ?

I have heard that it is costly to maintain, gobbles lots of fuel, doesn't glide well and is not really a four-seater with its 160 HP... probably form militant Piper advocates (!).

L

[Cusco]

I think a PA28 would go better with your epaulettes.:yuk:
Safe (and conspicuous) flying
Cusco

[dublinpilot]

Do National Flight Centre in Weston still have BYG, the Yellow TB9? Might be worth taking out for an hour to see if you like it?

I used to fly the other TB9 there, BSK, and loved it. Short field performance was never great though.....if you need to operate out of a short grass field, it may be an issue for you.

dp

[gcolyer]

How about a Grumman AA5-B

Thats a nice 4 seater with a 180hp up front. Burns about 40lph cruises about 115-120kts.

I have flown various PA28's and 172's.

The AA5-B is not as big as a PA28 inside, but it is lighter and faster with a bout the same fuel burn. It has a great canopy that gives a cracking view and look out. It glides well and I personally think it is one of my favorite aircraft to land.

The only bad thing is the nose wheel looks a bit flimsy and probably is compared to a 172 or PA28. But hey thats OK beacuase we all do lovely soft landings on our main gear don't we. I don't rate the brakes very much either. If you brake to hard they lock on then Mr Screwdriver and pliers is, plus an awkard upsidedown attitude in the left hand seat is required to free them up.

As much as i like it i still would rather have a PA32 300

[Genghis the Engineer]

I'd also consider a Robin (DR-400 or similar), Beech BE23 Musketeer - both nice 4-seat tourers, the former also meeting your European preference.

For that matter, not as fast, but better on short fields, what about a Moraine Saulnier MS220 Rallye? Loads about, usually cheap, French, great view out - just get the mainspar checked for corrosion before you buy.

G

[gcolyer]

I agree with the DR-400...great canaopy for site seeing.

Another cracker is a Maule MTX-7 180A superb STOL aircraft

[IO540]

I fly a TB20 and love it. If you offered me a TB20 or an SR22 I would choose the TB20 every time.

I would choose a TB10 over a TB9. Significant extra power. The TB9 is a fine plane, much nicer than the traditional spamcans you see everywhere, but a TB10 is significantly better.

Re IFR, you need to ask yourself whether you want to do "proper IFR" (with an IR, European touring) or "UK style IFR" (with an IMC Rating, popping in and out of clouds in Class G while dodging the base of the London TMA...). The equipment carriage requirements for the two are very different. Airways level equipment won't come cheap, especially if you also want to be legal :)

And it is usually cheaper to buy a plane with the required avionics already in, or mostly in, than to buy something cheaper, rip it all out (the stuff you rip out can barely be given away) and pay for new stuff.

I will send you a PM with more info.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Another cracker is a Maule MTX-7 180A superb STOL aircraft

Suitable for a low hour pilot?

G

[Wrong Stuff]

If you want reliable and thorough reviews, Aviation Consumer is well worth subscribing to. You get access to all the past reviews of aircraft, avionics etc. through their website.

[gcolyer]

Suitable for a low hour pilot?

G

I don't see why not. Very similar look, feel and size as a 172. No variable pitch, no retractable under carraige.

http://www.mauleairinc.com/Our_Planes/Maule_MXT-7-180A_Comet_/maule_mxt-7-180a_comet_.html

Although i would not recommend the 550feet take off or 500 feet landing as a low hour pilot!

[Genghis the Engineer]

Fair enough, my mental picture was more http://www.mauleairinc.com/____Our_Planes/Maule_M-7-260_and_260C/maule_m-7-260_and_260c.html

G

[gcolyer]

I would like to see a bush pilot stick some Tundra tires on that and have a competition with a Supercub pilot.

[The Cardinal]

Try here http://www.cardinalflyers.com/ for another option, one is listed for sale in the UK in the Classifed section, although it does have a wobbly prop.
The Cardinal.

[IO540]

Come on everybody. You might say I am biased, but the original man asked for views on a Socata TB9. What does he get? A suggestion for just about every type of plane that's flying. You ask 20 pilots and you get 20 different answers - that's aviation; pilots are passionate about the planes they are used to. But it's not what he asked about.

I also don't think somebody who thinks a TB9 would deliver on their intended mission profile is going to want a Maule.

[gcolyer]

True.

But you have to admit this would be fun

http://www.mauleairinc.com/____Our_P..._and_260c.html (http://www.mauleairinc.com/____Our_Planes/Maule_M-7-260_and_260C/maule_m-7-260_and_260c.html)

[IO540]

Yes it would be, but what is the desired mission profile?

If you want something that gets airborne in about 100m, and can land in not a lot more than that, but can't go anywhere far, or anywhere fast, you have plenty of choice.

Similarly at the other end of the scale. Planes that will go 1000nm at 150kt TAS but need 1000m of tarmac.

Not a lot in the middle, because - short of a turboprop - it can't be done. The only way (unless as I say you have a light but very powerful powerplant, by which I mean 400-500HP) to get short field capability is to bring the stall speed way down and then you compromise cruise performance. You also compromise the ride quality because you get low wing loading which causes the plane to be chucked about all over the place.

I was in a Maule recently, as a passenger, and the pilot's wife was unfortunately a bit ill in the back, in what I would describe as light turbulence which in a TB9/10/20 would be fine but not in a type with such low wing loading. A typical English summer day, with little white fluffy clouds in the sky above. But it's obviously great for short strips - a lot of people living in the countryside would be able to operate a Maule from their garden.

A TB gives you a good ride, good range, sufficient performance for most of UK and European GA airfields, good fuel flow for the TAS, and is easy to fly with no quirks.

[dublinpilot]

Re IFR, you need to ask yourself whether you want to do "proper IFR" (with an IR, European touring) or "UK style IFR" (with an IMC Rating, popping in and out of clouds in Class G while dodging the base of the London TMA...). The equipment carriage requirements for the two are very different. Airways level equipment won't come cheap, especially if you also want to be legal


Lowery gives his location as Dublin.

If their aircraft will be put on the EI register, or if they have an IAA issued licence, then the UK IMC rating will not be available to them. They will have to go for the full IR.

dp

[The Cardinal]

Reading the original post again, I note the poster requested information on 3 types, not one, and his preamble suggested that list might not be complete.

What loewy should understand is, like a car, a boat, or any review of any product, the review will reflect the opinions, biases and preferences of the tester, and may not be objective.

Further, in General Aviation there are more ‘old wives tails’ that either no longer have any basis, or never had any basis, than in any other field I’ve ever encountered, never the less they are repeated and still believed.

In short loewy, my suggestion is look around, see what you like, what attracts you, then pay your money and take your choice. Regard renters opinions* with suspicion, don’t pick anything really out of the mainstream, and enjoy your purchase.

*(When looking for expert opinion, speak to owners not to renters; renters are wannabe’s who do not have the courage to put their money where their opinions are. England is so full of ‘experts’ who cannot afford to own what they are ‘expert’ in, it’s sickening. It’s like getting advice on marriage from someone who’s never been married!)

Fly safe,
The Cardinal.

[J.A.F.O.]

It’s like getting advice on marriage from someone who’s never been married!

Some would say that they're the ones who've understood best, my old grandad used to say that if you thought about getting married you should save up hard, until you had enough money and then spend it all on a sports car.

[The Cardinal]

“Some would say that they're the ones who've understood best”


Or, to reinforce my point: Those who never understood at all…..

Now back to the point, or should I say Cardinal point, of flight reviews:
T.C.

[IO540]

I would definitely suggest firming up one's flying ambitions before getting married. I see too many men being driven out of it by marrying women who dislike flying.

[pistongone]

The TB10 is a good plane, but the VP Prop will put your maintenance up, and the 180hp engine will put your fuel bills up. Good for long legs, i've flown one over to Spa from Earls Coln. They have a nice one for rent G-TZEE £125/hr wet. I agree that taking one for a spin would be a good idea, and whilst there see if you can get a few questions in with the owner. Personally, i think the best all rounder is a decent 172. Lots of leg room for the pax in the back, fast enough for the money and pretty good for short field. I took one into Lundy 4up! And thats published at 400meters! But if you get out and push it right back into the rocks you can get another 50:ok: and we cleared the 4' wall no problems! Why the desire for something European? Parts for Cessna and Piper are easily aquired and most Engineering shops know them inside out, so what are your percieved advantages of buying European? Whatever you choose, make sure you read and get to know the POH intimately treat every flight like its your first one in it. Do a thourough Pre-Flight even if its only a day since you last flew it! "Familliarity breads contempt".

[aluminium persuader]

The Piper is very mechanical, the Socata very electric & the Cessna somewhere in between. If your end goal is the Bonanza, I would discount the Cessna for the high wing. I've flown the TB9 with 4 adults in & out of Goodwood in the summer with no problems, although granted it's not long on power.

I would suggest you first look at the limitations of the airfield you will be based at & the likely characteristics of your flying, ie how often will you want to be at MTOW. That may rule an a/c out in itself. Then try to arrange to test-fly each of the types, preferably on the same day & in the manner of the "typical" flight profile. If you'll be 4-up most of the time, test it with 4-up.

I still think the TB9 is most comfy. If I remember it's something like 40" across at shoulder height as opposed to 34" for the PA28. The two doors really is a bonus, believe it or not. Plus, since they open upwards, you can open them in the rain & not end up sitting on a sponge. It's also by far the most modern (& i think best looking) of the trio. Only problem I ever had was losing all the electrics once which meant a non-radio flapless landing. It was at Bounemouth though, so I could have made 3 off the one approach!

TB9 on the downside is probably the most fragile.

Edited to add
What about the Robin 3000? Good perf (130kts) & all you specify. Very nice to fly & like most Robins superb vis. A bit different from the norm with T-tail & teensy winglets!

[loewy]

Thank you all for your (mostly) constructive and helpful comments !

Special thanks to aluminium. I too like the Robin - although I have never flown one - but at the risk of getting bashed by some, I really would prefer having a proper yoke rather than a stick.

L

Ooooopsss ! Just realised the 3000 actually HAS a yoke... Disregard.

[englishal]

I've flown PA28's, C172s, TB10's and TB20's.

My views are that the TB20 is without doubt the most capable tourer. It is fast, carries well, a joy to fly, VFR or IFR in reasonably bad weather. But it is the most thirsty with its big 250HP engine, requires most maintenance due to wobbly prop and gear, and requires a reasonable runway. I'd love one if I could afford it.

The TB10 is similar in some respects to the TB20, but the main differences are: slower, less thirsty, less performance due to the 180HP engine. Less maintenance costs due to the fixed gear, but it still has a wobbly prop, which doesn't add that much over a fixed prop 180HP aeroplane. Glides like a brick, excellent cross wind performance, I landed one easily with 25 kts across the runway.

PA28's well....depends on what you want. I used to fly the Dakota with a 236HP engine and wobbly prop. That was fun, and it really hoiked you into the air and was pretty quick. The 180HP versions are ok, not stuning performance or stunning short field performance, but reasonably comfortable, will get you there and look nice. Easy and safe to fly, and relatively cheap to run with fixed gear and prop. The 160HP and less are still fun to fly, but less performance obviously and you'll soon reach max weight.

C172's....Ok, pretty much like the PA28's, though I personally don't really like them. They are better for sight seeing and that is about it.

Now, do you really want to fly hard IFR and tour hunderds of miles all the time? If not I would suggest a Socata Rallye as your first aeroplane. I bought a share in one and it is brilliant.

Mine has a 160HP engine, but has better performance than a 160HP PA28. They have automatic leading edge slats so it CAN get you in and out of the really short strips if you want. I've had 4 adults and full fuel in mine and was off the deck in about 200m, gives a duration of 5 or so hours with a reasonable burn (£40 or so per hour covers our fuel and some left in the pot). I cruise comfortably at 90 kts, 95 - 100 if I push it, so not record breaking speed or anything. Very safe, you can stall it and "falling leaf" to the ground at under 1000 fpm. Reasonably comfortable, I'm 185cm tall. Sliding canopy so entry and exit is better than a PA28 and excellent visibility. Fixed gear and prop so cheap to maintain. Aero's approved (or ours is) for basic aero's: spins, stall turns, loops, rolls etc.....Stick as opposed to yoke, which is neither hear nor there, but I prefer it. Good positive response from the controls as well. Ours is FM immune so can be used to fly IFR if wanted.

And the best bit....They are dirt cheap! You have to look carefully at them as many had corrosion problems, but if you got one like I did which is in outstanding condition, you get an awful lot for your money.

One more advantage I have thought of is that it weighs in at 1918lbs. This is good at places like Bournemouth which charge the landing fee based on aircraft weight, with normally a threshold at 2000lbs. I used to get charged £30something in a TB10 at Bournemouth, last time I was there in the Rallye, it cost £15 or so.

[Pianorak]

Regarding the Socata TBs I seem to remember reports that pre-1989 models were said to have corrosion issues. Has that been borne out in practice?

[IO540]

Yes there was a spar AD on the TB. One of the things one would check if buying one, but then every plane ever made has a list of ADs as long as your arm anyway... Some even longer :)

Englishal - are you sure the TB10 does more MPG than the TB20? I am not so sure. It drinks more but it goes a lot faster. I get the same MPG now as I used to get in a PA28 Archer, but I am moving a helluva lot faster. Fixed gear comes with a heavy price tag in fuel flow. The TB20 does the same MPG as a Cirrus SR22.

[englishal]

Englishal - are you sure the TB10 does more MPG than the TB20?
Actually you are probably right regarding MPG. Interesting thought, I wonder which SEP has the most economical MPG figure, when factoring in cruise speed? Your beast will burn more fuel than mine per hour, but then you cruise >50% faster than me too :O

[pistongone]

An interesting calculation in regards of cost is the pasenger mile per litre. If you take the cruise speed, multiply by number of passengers and divide by fuel burn in litres you get the amount of fuel to move each pax a mile! So consider a Cherokee Six. 60ltrs/hr six up and doing 135Kn @6000' 135 x 6= 810 passenger miles. Divide by litres and you get 13.5 passenger miles per litre. This plane is the cheapest i have found for touring, but it does need to be atleast 4up to make it pay. BTW i rent one from Turweston as most of my flying is one or two up so it works out cheaper to keep my 172 and rent when enough pax are available to make it cost effective. Try doing the calc for a few types and i think you will be surprised at which planes are more cost effective for certian flight profiles. Sorry for going off topic:O

[BlueRobin]

Maule might be better if you are flying around Eire, land of the airstrip, VFR (I see your location says Dublin). Make sure you get some quality instruction from someone who knows the type. There is a bonus too in that they are still made (same factor applies to Piper and Cessna) so parts are relatively easy to come by, though the family-run factory can mean they are a bit relaxed on the customer service side. Not a great stable IFR platform by the way.

Any metal Robin/TB is going to cost more ££££s in parts.

[Wrong Stuff]

An interesting calculation in regards of cost is the pasenger mile per litre. If you take the cruise speed, multiply by number of passengers and divide by fuel burn in litres you get the amount of fuel to move each pax a mile! So consider a Cherokee Six. 60ltrs/hr six up and doing 135Kn @6000' 135 x 6= 810 passenger miles. Divide by litres and you get 13.5 passenger miles per litre. This plane is the cheapest i have found for touring, but it does need to be atleast 4up to make it pay.
Mooney M20J 160 kts at 9.9 USG/hr at FL100. 4-up that's 17.0 passenger miles per litre.

[pistongone]

Wrong Stuff,
nice one, but how much does a mooney cost to run? and buy? If you have one would you let it out for trials?

[Wrong Stuff]

To run the costs are in line with other retractable, variable pitch prop aircraft. It's a Lycoming IO-360 engine, so pretty standard from that point of view.

To buy they're remarkably cheap, as they seem to be deeply unpopular in the UK - possibly because they have a bad reputation for operation on grass. As a guide, take the US book price and SUBTRACT the ferry costs.

I have one; it's a lovely aircraft, fantastic for touring, but there's no way anyone else is flying it :).

[BlueRobin]

Forgot to post

http://www.socata.org/

Socata User Group. Very informative website.

[aluminium persuader]

No worries Loewy!

If it helps, I have had

Me
Mrs P
Master P age 5 + car seat
Miss P age 2 1/2 + car seat
Big 3-wheeler buggy
Changes of clothes & cleaning equipment for the kids
Lots of fuel (tho can't remember if it was full tanks)

& flew it to a small airshow. With the canopy rather than a door it was a doddle to load & unload. Have to say, the looks we got from Joe Public when I was bringing out more... & more.... & more were hilarious!:D

This particular a/c was delivered from Austria & would apparently just about have made the trip non-stop. The yoke is set kind of high for my liking & with the long wings it handles a little like a glider & can float forever but it is a great a/c to fly & economical too.

ap

edited cos I forgot to say I'm talking about the Robin here! oops!

[Pianorak]

. . . deeply unpopular in the UK - possibly because they have a bad reputation for operation on grass.
Deservedly? Undeservedly? Actually, I am tempted.
. . . but there's no way anyone else is flying it :).
In which case yours must be the one I saw at Elstree the other day? ;)

[IO540]

Pistongone - very good point about 6 seats. But with 6 seats loaded with "present day sized" people you have just enough range to get to Le Touquet and back :) May be good for Vietnamese refugees though :)

Realistically, a 6-seater will very rarely be full, unless one is running some dodgy operation.

Fundamentally, an engine operated at peak EGT, or lean of peak, is going to deliver X HP per gallon/hour. Something like 10-15HP per GPH I think. It doesn't matter what size it is; the bigger the better and one with fewer cylinders and bigger cylinders will be better. That's why an IO-540 in a TB20 delivers at least as many MPG than an IO-320 (?) in a TB9/10. Similar airframe, TB20 has no legs hanging out :)

There is no free lunch with planes. Everything is a tradeoff against something else.

[Wrong Stuff]

. . . deeply unpopular in the UK - possibly because they have a bad reputation for operation on grass.
Deservedly? Undeservedly? Actually, I am tempted.
The general opinion is that anything up to an M20J is ok on grass. The M20K had the heavier, turbocharged engine which reduced prop clearance too much. After the K they moved to the larger engined long bodied models. You'd have to be a brave person to try one of those on grass.

In reality with the J, the gear doors are very close to the ground and could easily get damaged. You can remove them for grass runway operation, but it's a fag. Personally, I pick destinations with hard runways as although you miss out on some great places, it's not worth the risk of a prop strike. But I know others who are a lot less cautious and are happy operating off grass.

. . . but there's no way anyone else is flying it .
In which case yours must be the one I saw at Elstree the other day?
Nope, not me!!
There is no free lunch with planes. Everything is a tradeoff against something else.That's very true. Comparing the TB20 to the Mooney, they're very similar in terms of mission, but the Mooney burns a lot less fuel. However, with the TB20 you get those two large doors which are much more elegant to get in and out of, and a considerably more spacious cabin with enough glass to make a greenhouse.

I've always loved the efficiency of the Mooney. I never think twice about flying somewhere because it's so frugal in terms of fuel burn. And although I've got GAMIs fitted I never bother with LOP operations because the saving in fuel isn't worth losing the 10-20 knots. Against that, the cabin has a bit of a "sports car" feel - although it's well suited to tall people, it's quite narrow and you really feel it in winter if everyone's wearing bulky jackets. For European touring, though, it's difficult to beat.

[IO540]

What is the fuel flow in your Mooney at say 140kt IAS? I get 10.5 GPH (USG).

It should be lower because a Mooney has a narrower cockpit; the frontal area of a plane is a major thing in fuel efficiency. A Spitfire is even more narrow :)

[Wrong Stuff]

What is the fuel flow in your Mooney at say 140kt IAS? I get 10.5 GPH (USG).
140kts? Why on earth would you fly that slow :)

Generally I cruise at 2400 rpm a little richer than 100F ROP for a fuel burn around 9.7 USG/hr and a TAS of 154-156. I do keep an occasional log of real-world parameters so I can track any long-term changes in temps, pressures, speeds etc, but I've only recently added the fuel burn. Looking at that, the only times I've flown that slow and noted the fuel flow have been LOP operations, which probably aren't the numbers you're interested in. All the same:

137kts at FL100 burning 7.9 USG/hr (29.9 lit/hr)
135kts at FL100 burning 7.7 USG/hr (29.1 lit/hr)

[Wrong Stuff]

Oh, sorry - just re-read your message. Those are TASs quoted above, not IASs.

The nearest IAS numbers I've got on my log are:
- IAS 135, TAS 156, FL100 for a fuel flow of 9.7 USG/hr (36.7 lit/hr)

[Pianorak]

In reality with the J, the gear doors are very close to the ground and could easily get damaged.
Interesting. The same presumably applies to a M20F. And I thought "prop clearance" was the only issue which, I assume, could be overcome by fitting a three-blade prop. Or not.

[IO540]

You fell into the aeroplane salesman IAS/TAS trap there :)

At FL100, 138kt IAS is about 155kt TAS. So you are 9.7GPH, I am 10.5 GPH. That is an 8% difference; probably accounted for by the difference in the cockpit frontal cross-section alone. You pays your money and you takes your choice, and width matters more than length in this case :)

I wonder why your LOP figures are so much slower. The fuel flow doesn't have to be that much lower. There is no efficiency gain in going that far LOP. The tiniest amount past peak EGT is every bit as good. Perhaps you cruise at 75% or higher power.

The thing that you pay for heavily is flying at max cruise, versus flying just a bit under. I get the impression that a lot of Americans fly at 75%, and well rich of peak. Hence the old saying that fuel is the cheapest thing you can stick inside your engine. Less and less true every day, but it undermines the decades-old preconceptions about some planes being more efficient. It also makes comparisons of different planes' cruise performance, from published data, nearly impossible.

Pianorak - there are grass strips and there are grass strips. Some are perfectly OK, e.g. Panshanger. Many are dreadful, with potholes which the owner would not tolerate in his back garden, but if somebody bends their plane on his airfield he sticks his finger up and tells them to claim off their insurance. My view is that grass is OK for any of the TB series, but it's true for all planes that operating from grass will result in higher operating costs in the long run, as well as a generally filthier plane all round.

A TB20 with a 3B prop has 8" of ground clearance on the prop. The front gear suspension travel is 3" (probably same for all TBs, old and new) which leaves 5" max allowable pothole depth. However, this 5" can be exhausted if the ground ahead is rapidly rising, as often is the case on grass-concrete transitions. One must have a walk-around before departure, always, to make sure one can taxi away, and use the towbar if necessary. Even if this p1sses off a queue of renters behind.

[Wrong Stuff]

The same presumably applies to a M20F.
No, the gear doors of the M20F aren't as close to the ground. The F isn't quite as aerodynamically tidy as the J and part of that is that the gear doors weren't as tight fitting.

I wonder why your LOP figures are so much slower. The fuel flow doesn't have to be that much lower. There is no efficiency gain in going that far LOP. The tiniest amount past peak EGT is every bit as good. Perhaps you cruise at 75% or higher power.

In part that's a factor of me not liking to run at the higher EGTs you get just LOP. If I do run LOP, it tends to be at least 25 LOP, which is the setting that was giving the figures I quoted earlier, so that I'm not cooking the valves. I understand the theory and know that at FL100 I can run at peak EGT, I just don't feel comfortable doing so.

Although LOP does give lower CHTs, they're never that high to begin with. At 100 ROP the hottest cylinder never goes above 360F, which is fine. At 25 LOP the CHT falls to around 290F. And LOP does give lower fuel burn, but again it's not that high to begin with, so the saving in relation to the speed loss doesn't seem worth it.

The late Roy LoPresti who designed the M20J had a motto - "Life is short - Fly FAST!" It seems disrespectful to his memory to fly a Mooney at anything less than full chat.

[Pianorak]

Pianorak - there are grass strips and there are grass strips. . . . and then there is WW. ;)