Socata TB 10: is this a good Club tourer?

[Woodenwonder]

Our club is in danger of a making a major decision - the proposition is to sell our Cessna F172M - now getting old and tired, and replace it with a more modern type.
I am totally biassed as you can see from my handle. For my money, nothing can beat the DR400 family, say the DR400-140. Not least because they have two throttles and sticks instead of a control wheel.
But our wise committee is going down a TB 10 route, without knowing a darn thing about this type (committee management is a wonderful thing isn't it?).
Have heard tell that these high wing loading jobs need the curvature of the earth to get them airborne.
For people used to a benign 172, what are they like on the approach - especially if a glide approach?
Grateful for any views on suitability in terms of safe, easy handling.

[IO540]

The TB10 is a very nice plane, easy to fly, with no weird behaviour.

A lot of people talk about it needing a long runway, but if you do a comparison of different types, with comparable engine power, you will find this is a myth.

Everything is a compromise, between stall speed, max cruise, fuel flow, cockpit frontal area, range, etc. A C172 probably has a shorter takeoff run but that's because it compromises things at a different point, meaning that it uses more fuel at a given cruise speed.

[Say again s l o w l y]

TB10's are not bad, as long as you get a more modern version that has a bit of head room.

They can be troublesome maintenance wise, but they are very stable if a bit ponderous in roll and simplicity itself to land. They do come down a bit faster than a 172 in a PFL, the glide ratio is a bit brick like!

The interior is a bit hideous and you have to careful of the doors in strong winds or with propwash. But there are definately worse things out there.

[effortless]

Flew one around German mountains for a a few hours. It was very easy to handle in very lumpy conditions. Lovely visibilty and the one I flew had enough grunt to tow a glider. It got off a very grassy runway quickly enough carrying a heavy load ( me and me fat mates.).

[Woodenwonder]

Thanks. So mostly good news - but will it really get out of Old Sarum when its a bit soft and wet? At max AUW that is.

[BlueRobin]

Both handle well enough, but the Robin cockpit is less idiosyncratic though the seats are more snuggy in the TB. Socata are not making any TBs, Robin still are. As with any aircraft I'd go with the better factory support.

[Saab Dastard]

Don't forget that the TB10 has a wobbly prop, so differences training needs to be considered. And maintenance cost will be slightly higher.

Socata are not making any TBs, Robin still are

Errr - you sure about that BlueRobin? this (http://www.socata.com/web/lang/en/1024/content/OF00000031800002/3/00/31800003.html) looks like a going concern to me! Perhaps you meant it the other way around?

SD

[Sunfish]

We have one down here at YMMB. It's a bit of an orphan, so I got an endorsement on it to widen my range of options.

1. Its French. Expect Frenchified ways of doing things unless they are vastly improved on the one I have access to. Ie:

a) Circuit breakers used as switches.
b) Cryptic trim indicator
c) Tiny unreliable ribbon gauges for engine function that are impossible to read. (hopefully these are replaced)
d) Nice leather seats
e) The weight and balance information in the POH is impossible to understand. We had to translate to "Piperese"
f) Funny switch positions.

2. The roof leaks - right on the pocket where the POH sits. The gull wing doors are sexy but the seals need to be good otherwise you will get wet when it rains.

3. The sexy flush fuel caps leak if the seals aren't perfect, unlike the ugly "Top Hat" Piper and Cessna types. If you leave one out in the rain ferchrissake drain both tanks again.

4. The doors cannot be opened in flight, nor should you try taxiing with them unlocked. Ours is sitting waiting for a new pilots door because it unlatched on the ground and is seriously and totally bent - about $11,000 I think. If it happens in flight you will lose the door, and may or may not succeed in returning the aircraft to the ground. Difficult to get older people in and out as well.

5. The ailerons are heavy.

6. The elevator is very light and sensitive - too sensitive. It's fun to watch the untutored rotate one. This and No 5 take getting used to, its not well coordinated.

7. It glides like a brick. Very high ROD with power off, normally land with a little power on until the last second.

8. This aeroplane will bite if the base to final turn is fumbled.

9. It's not a STOL aircraft by any means.

10. Older ones need to have the main spar checked for exfoliation corrosion.

Apart from that, Its a nice tourer and reasonably quick, but I wouldn't want learners near one. things happen just a little to quick and its not forgiving compared to the Good 'Ol C172 or Worrier.

P.S. We are adding an aerobatic Robin to our fleet early next year.

[IO540]

Some stuff written here is true, some is a myth.

The interior is a bit hideous

That's a matter of opinion :) I would argue that the interior of a TB (and note that the design goes back to about 1980) looks more modern than the average spamcan, and most non-aviation people seem to agree. It has a "designed" instrument panel, whereas Cessna/Piper went for a flat plate in which you cut out holes and screw in the instruments.

Most people inside GA are conditioned to the C/P way of doing things and tend to regard the TB cockpit as a bit weird but it's actually very nice to fly with.

For performance data, no good asking here. You need to look at the data! There is a takeoff perf chart in the actual plane's POH. Consult that, no pprune :)

The VP prop is a virtually insignificant extra cost, on the scale of aircraft operating costs. This is another enduring GA myth. When I was on G-reg, I estimated about £3/hr and that was a 3-blade £10,000 prop on a TB20, on a Transport CofA. You recover that cost easily in extra performance and thus extra range, etc - in the same way one recovers any extra maintenance costs of retractable gear several times over in the fuel savings.

That said, an old dog of a TB10 is an old dog, just like an old dog of a C172. If it has been badly treated and parked outdoors all the time, and worked on by monkey engineers, the plastic instrument panel parts will look very knackered, whereas on a Cessna/Piper nobody would notice that because they all tend to look knackered anyway (with everybody having to climb over the P2 seat, in a PA28 for example).

Edit: there is a reasonably good and active (if mostly American-populated) Socata user group at www.socata.org (http://www.socata.org)

[fltcom]

Maintenance can be horrible, I'd get a C182.

Flt

[S-Works]

IO you would stick up for it you fly the big brother!!

Personally I found them quite a pleasant airplane to fly, I flew the TB9 first and the then the TB10, wobbly prop makes a small improvement but not much! And they do take the cirvature of the earth to get off the ground compared to a 172. Nearly 2.5times the distance. Good range on them but not quite a real 4 adult aircraft. Very expensive to fix when they go wrong comapred to a Cessna. The interior is just terrible, so renault. Give me a Cessna interior anyday.

I personally think your average club flyer who is never very current will not know how to treat it. Expect it to be bent within 6 months!

For a club a 172 with a big engine wins every time. A 182 would be stunning but you would not get enough utilisation to make it pay as the rental rate would be quite high to cover the fuel burn. The 182 is a tourer rather than a club flyer.

At the end of the day, an overhaul on the 172, new avionics, carpets, leather and paint would probably give you a much better CLUB aircraft.

[Woodenwonder]

Bose,
Were you a fly on the wall at out last committee meeting?

You're uncannily close to our debate - our existing 172 airframe is very sound according to our M3 engineer, respray still looks good, but she will soon need a re-built engine and C of A, perhaps some smarter avionics.

But there are some very odd factors in choosing a new type. One is the weight to push/pull in and out of the hangar. Have just looked up the AUW of a TB10.
We had a metal Robin (French Cherokee - not a wooden sleek, economical bent wing job!) and when full of fuel you needed a couple of front row rugger players to shift it!
And although I said we were looking for a tourer, truth is it is flown most of the time in or close to the circuit by one, perhaps two, crew. But we need to have a touring capability and a 4 seater.

IO - thanks for yolur input but I don't belive one can go to the POH performance to get the real feel of take-off run. We once had a Pup 100 and on its 500 size tyres, I've had it at terminal velocity on soft top soil at 40kn - going nowhere! The Robin was also not very clever on grass, even with 180 hp it was pretty leisurely (admittedly with a fixed pitch prop).

[S-Works]

Bose,
Were you a fly on the wall at out last committee meeting?

No but I flew and looked at a lot of airplanes before I finally realised why Cessna's were so enduring!!!

I am on my 3rd Cessna now, they just got bigger and better each time!

Imagine your existing one with nice leather, new trim and carpets and a GMA340/GNS430 etc avionics fit........ A proper CLUB tourer.

[greeners]

Have flown the TB10 a few times. OK aeroplane, if a little dull. I did find the view out somewhat restricted.

[IO540]

TB view restricted??? :ugh: This plane has an amazingly good view.

Well guys you can't have it both ways. If you are looking for a plane which can be kicked about by club renters then you better buy a Cessna, or possibly a PA28.

It's no good getting a TB because it's a classy aircraft. It's the sort of plane which you can take a girlfriend up in and she won't sniff at the antiquated look. But I appreciate that for the majority of hardened GA pilots this is not a factor :)

The business about parts is a myth. I know a man who spends 7000 quid a year on (guess what) a C150! The whole thing is worth maybe 2x to 3x that. That is about 4x my annual maintenance bill on the TB20. If you get a plane that is old enough, and has been treated badly enough, it will cost you dearly to keep it afloat. A TB will suffer more than a C172 if everybody who gets in kicks the dash with size 20 boots. Horses for courses.

Re performance - look in the POH. Feel is nothing to do with this. The hard data is in the POH. If the plane doesn't meet the POH perf then get it fixed.

Of course a C172 will get airborne is less distance. It has about half the wing loading. The price you pay is the ride in turbulence, cruise speed / fuel flow rate, etc. Again, horses for courses.

[S-Works]

Bah! Peter you and I will debate this until the cows come home! I love Cessna's and you love the TB's. I happen to think the inside of my deep pile sheepskin clad, brand new avionics 172XP will kick the ass of a Renault interior TB10... :p It will also wup it's ass in cruise speed, shortfield, load carrying and fuel burn. :)

[dublinpilot]

I flew a TB9 regularly shortly after getting my PPL. Loved it to bits. Now fly PA28's all the time, but still look longingly back at the TB9.

Is is a lot more room in the TB series than a PA28. I believe all the TB series share the same cabin. The cockpit layout, while maybe French, is an order of decades newer in design.

It also LOOKS like a great airplane.

But I suppose at the end of the day, if everyone agreed on aircraft, then there would only be one type sold. If everyone agreed Ford Mondeo's were the best in the class, then there would be no Primera nor Avensis's sold. It all comes down to individual tastes and priorities.

dp

[IO540]

Certainly, styling is a matter of opinion. I just don't agree with certain claims about performance figures. If you have two planes, both say 1000kg, both having say 180HP, and both having a VP prop, and both having the same stall speed, then both will have a very similar takeoff run and initial climb performance.

This is because, at speeds low enough for drag to be relatively less important, the acceleration is simply some constant multiplied by thrust/weight. Also when you get airborne, you are still flying slowly, so the climb rate (+fpm) will be similarly determined because you are converting engine power into potential energy.

The bit I underlined is the key to differing takeoff performance given the same power, and this is where loads of compromises in cruise speed, range, etc come from.

[S-Works]

The theory may be sound Peter but the practical side sems to be very different. At Leics there is a TB10 and a 160HP 172 watching them take off with 2 POB within minutes of each other the TB takes nearly twice the runway of the club 172 which takes 50% more runway than my 172. This is more than just a case of horse power and prop, it is down to airframe design and wing design. A 172 wing is huge and develops a lot of lift very quickly so the out of the trap acceleration may be similar but I think the 172 turns it into lift faster.


Certainly, styling is a matter of opinion. I just don't agree with certain claims about performance figures. If you have two planes, both say 1000kg, both having say 180HP, and both having a VP prop, and both having the same stall speed, then both will have a very similar takeoff run and initial climb performance.

This is because, at speeds low enough for drag to be relatively less important, the acceleration is simply some constant multiplied by thrust/weight. Also when you get airborne, you are still flying slowly, so the climb rate (+fpm) will be similarly determined because you are converting engine power into potential energy.

The bit I underlined is the key to differing takeoff performance given the same power, and this is where loads of compromises in cruise speed, range, etc come from.

[pistongone]

Well i must admit to having a lot more hours on the Cessna than the TB10. For me i thought the TB10 was definitely more modern in the cockpit. Strange system for electric checks though. Performance wasnt that great for a 180, appx110-115kn. Surely the comparable Robin would be the Regent @ 180hp? And they crack along at 130kn+ and take four ppl with a decent fuel load. The 172 would be my choice as i simply like them better and they do get up much quicker. As the o/p was talking in terms of TB or Robin i think we might be muddying the waters with the Cessna/Piper debate? One thing i deffinitely agree with IO540 on is taking the Wife/Friends or more importantly business colleagues out for a run is much better in a TB as it does look more modern! But would i buy one? NO.

[A and C]

The TB10 is not a bad aircraft but the shortcomings that have been outlined above show that it will cost more than your C172 and won't work as well from sticky grass airfields in the British winter.

I would think that the DR400 would be the best aircraft to replace the C172 as it WILL lift as much as the C172 off a SHORTER grass strip.

From what you have said you need to have at least the DR400-160, this is the most efficient of the DR400 range in terms of speed/range and unless you are into long flights with a big payload.

The DR400-180 is not a lot faster than the 160 but it can with the supplimentry tank option stay in the air for almost seven hours, this makes the sothern Spain a one stop trip from the UK.

[IO540]

At Leics there is a TB10 and a 160HP 172 watching them take off with 2 POB within minutes of each other the TB takes nearly twice the runway of the club 172 which takes 50% more runway than my 172

Sure, very different stall speeds.

Another difference could be the C172 has more effective flaps, giving it .... guess what .... a lower stall speed ;)

There is no free lunch, no matter how you look at it.

As for operating costs, there is a vast difference between the operating costs of say a 10 year old and say a 20 year old plane. The manufacturer is a secondary factor. Socata parts prices have historically been high because certain "things" going on in the UK, but you can get parts from other European Socata dealers.

It could well be that a C172 is much better for this particular mission requirement and I would never argue with that.