socata tb9 any good ?

[jxc]

Hi

As the title says what is the TB9 like as have seen a share going for one will want to use it for touring 2 adults ( me and misses ) 2 kids ( 14 and 7 yrs )

Cheers

Jxc

[Lurking123]

Make sure you have a long runway. 2+2 (small) should be OK but you wouldn't be beating any distance records (usefiul load is no more than about 400kg). I think there is an exemplar perf and w&b schedule on the internet somewhere; worth having a look.

[S-Works]

I flew a TB9 for a lot of hours a few years a G-BIXB. Nice aircraft, only a 2 plus bags, but big fuel tanks and good range on it. Cruises at about 110kts. As has been said it really likes to eat runway. I did touring trip around France in it once and decided to stop at Andewsfield on the way home for lunch, 2 up, bags and 3/4 fuel and we only just cleared the hedge.

It lands quite nose high compared to other spam cans. I also understand there were corrosion problems so worth getting it looked over properly.

Otherwise an honest aircraft.

[IO540]

The TB9 is no worse on runway requirements than any other 4-seater with same engine HP, weight, and stall speed. How could it be? Physics is physics.

As with all planes, the pilot needs to read the manual and the figures are in there.

Compare the runway performance with say a Warrior. But a TB has a much more user-friendly cockpit than the single-door types. Very much more civilised. Passengers love them.

The corrosion issues date back to the 1980s and were addressed with ADs, and it is easy enough to check if these have been done (by inspection of documents and looking through the wing inspection covers etc).

I fly a TB20 which with 250HP is much more capable, but otherwise the airframe is almost the same.

There is a user group at socata.org where one can ask about specific issues. If you ask a detailed question you should eventually get a detailed answer from the site owner. It's mostly an American crowd there so don't say anything about guns, the election, the Jews, or guns :)

[Lurking123]

TB9
Engine: O-320-D2A 160HP
Average empty weight : 1,440 lbs
Max. take off weight (MTOW) : 2,337 lbs
Max. useful load : 897 lbs
Take off over 50 ft obstacle : 1,866 ft
Landing over 50 ft obstacle : 1,378 ft

PA28 Warrior

Engine: O-320-D3G 160HP
Empty Weight: 1533 lbs
Gross Weight: 2440 lbs
Useful load: 907lbs
Takeoff over 50 ft obstacle: 1,620 ft
Landing over 50 ft obstacle: 1,160 ft


It looks as if the Warrior wins by a couple of hundred feet. That said, I'm not sure I would want a share in a 160HP PA28. Something with an O-360 in the front makes a lot of difference.

[S-Works]

The TB9 is no worse on runway requirements than any other 4-seater with same engine HP, weight, and stall speed. How could it be? Physics is physics.

I would beg to differ IO. Some aircraft are a lot better at wringing performance out of the same engine than others. Having flown the TB9 and the Warrior I can tell you that the TB9 is a runway hog compared to most others in the same class. An equivalent powered Cessna will use a fraction of the runway that the TB uses for example.

I am prepared to be edified by your forthcoming explanation of why I am wrong though. ;)

[Fuji Abound]

Interesting the TB is lighter but uses more runway.

[S-Works]

Differences in the design of the wing, fuselage width etc. It's all there in POF.

It is all physics, just not as IO is interpreting them......

[IO540]

Fuji

Interesting the TB is lighter but uses more runway

1866ft v. 1620ft is certainly within the tolerance of flight tests uses to generate the POH data.

Take the TB20. How come I get 1300nm range which is 20% more range from it than the book says? Also the ceiling differs between G-reg (20k) and N-reg (18k). Must be the extra thick letters of the N-reg :) Most likely it is the test conditions.

I would agree that a 160HP Warrior-class plane is not as capable as something with 200HP but that's another argument. With a typical 4-seater, really usable performance goes up fast once at/past 200HP and continues to rocket after that, reaching the point of dimishing returns past 300HP which is the limit of practical piston engines anyway. The TB10 is noticeably faster than the TB9, for example.

Also a TB9 has an optional CS prop - this makes a substantial difference to climb performance.

Oh nearly forgot... don't take the usual baits from bose-x :) I see most people here have got the message already.

[S-Works]

Oh nearly forgot... don't take the usual baits from bose-x I see most people here have got the message already.

Oh but you do, every time you make that statement you rise to my bait..... ;);)

Despite which it was not baiting it was a direct question for you to explain your theory that for a given weight and horsepower the performance should be the same. The JAA CPL/IR maybe gold plated but clearly the POF are better taught....... :ok:

[jxk]

Pipers are lot better to maintain; cheaper spares and availability. No contest really;)

[Lurking123]

Personally, if I was going for a 160HP machine it would be a 172.

[IO540]

Pipers are lot better to maintain; cheaper spares and availabilityThat one-liner is far from the whole story (as most one-liners are). I am sure I have written all this before but here we go.......

Most scheduled maintenance bits on any normal GA plane are common as muck parts which you can pick up at any aviation parts shop. Gaskets, filters, plugs, etc. This is true for Cessnas, Pipers, Socatas, etc. Only a mug is going to buy an IO-320 oil filter from Socata....

Same with avionics - mostly American stuff.

It is the airframe that brings the differences, and much depends on its age and history. Airframe parts are always eye-wateringly pricey, from everybody. Socata might be slightly more but not a lot. This is why knackered old planes are so cheap to buy - after about 20 years they need copious airframe parts which cost vast amounts and that's how you end up with bizzare stuff like £10,000 Annuals on a C150. But the mechanics on a TB are quite simple and provided it has been greased regularly (a big IF) it should be OK.

One downside of a TB is that its cockpit has had more visual design than most GA ones, and there is a lot of plastic trims. So, if you stick a muddy jackboot into a TB panel it will look bad, whereas if you do the same to a Cessna or a PA28 nobody will notice because it looks like a Titanic boiler room anyway :)

TBs are good "owner"-type planes and like being looked after. Like Bose X headsets. They don't survive well being kicked around on the club scene. Having said that, in years gone by, many schools (usually outside the UK) have used TBs, including TB20s, for ab initio training. During the 1990s and later, the TB became too expensive for that, due to Socata's wishful-thinking aircraft pricing and the prevalence of standard dirt cheap Cessna/Piper training types.

There are NO parts delivery time issues on Socatas.

[vanHorck]

The PA28 was made in much higher numbers and will therefore resell easier, and is still a low wing.

However, if at all possible i'd opt for a PA28-180

The Archer is mr averge. 4 people, good range, reasonable speed, but most important because of the numbers it was manufactured, it should hold it s value better.

[Fuji Abound]

Bose

It is all physics, just not as IO is interpreting them......

So what is the answer?

[S-Works]

Oh come on fuji, surely you don't need a lesson in basic aircraft design, aerodynamics and the fundamentals of lift and drag.

You are just being mischievous.... ;)

But lets just toy with an idea to keep you happy, let us strap a 160HP engine onto the front of a house brick and another onto the front of an aerodynamically streamlined tube, which is going perform better? Do we think that brute force and ignorance will match sleek?

I wonder what aircraft IO540 owns.......... ;)

[Fuji Abound]

Oh come on fuji, surely you don't need a lesson in basic aircraft design, aerodynamics and the fundamentals of lift and drag.

Hmm, never my strong point aerodynamics, sounds like a good opportunity to expand my knowledge.

Seems to me IO is suggesting they will both do as well.

[IO540]

Seems to me IO is suggesting they will both do as well.

Yes. At low speeds, like the climbout, engine power (thrust) goes mostly into building up of potential energy. Drag is only just starting to come into it. Prop efficiency obviously matters because that is what converts shaft HP into thrust. Basic mechanics :)

And Vr is directly related to Vs - assuming both test pilots actually rotated at the same tight multiple of Vs.

But almost nobody does max perf takeoffs for real because it is a very aggressive technique, with the stall warner going off the whole time.

[Fuji Abound]

Yes. At low speeds, like the climbout, engine power (thrust) goes mostly into building up of potential energy.

IO

As a point of order I am not sure whether you or Bose were talking only about the ground run (with the small element of climb to 50 feet)?

[IO540]

As a point of order I am not sure whether you or Bose were talking only about the ground run (with the small element of climb to 50 feet)?

Yes but that bit is even easier. The distance required to reach a certain speed (which as I say has to be a specific multiple of Vs if one is comparing types with the same Vs) is determined by the mass and the thrust. Drag hardly comes into it below Vr.

the amount of wing area

The TBs do have a higher wing loading than most other GA types which gives them a better ride in turbulence. But my remarks as to runway (i.e. low speed) performance still stand. However I don't think the TB9 stall speed is as low as a C172, which is what gives a C172 its much better short runway capability.

[jxk]

IO540

Most scheduled maintenance bits on any normal GA plane are common as muck parts which you can pick up at any aviation parts shop. Gaskets, filters, plugs, etc. This is true for Cessnas, Pipers, Socatas, etc. Only a mug is going to buy an IO-320 oil filter from Socata....

From experience Socata seem adverse to using standard AGS so very often you will find that instead of being able to buy 'of the shelf items' you have to buy manufacturer's parts. Fuel & Oil hoses?

[A and C]

A lot of talk about TB-9 Vs Cessnas & Pipers but what of the other French Factory?

Performance wise the Robin DR400 will better the TB9 in all areas except standing out in the rain.

TB9
Engine: O-320-D2A 160HP
Average empty weight : 1,440 lbs
Max. take off weight (MTOW) : 2,337 lbs
Max. useful load : 897 lbs
Take off over 50 ft obstacle : 1,866 ft
Landing over 50 ft obstacle : 1,378 ft

DR400-160

Engine: O-320 160HP
Average empty weight : 1,318 lbs
Max. take off weight (MTOW) : 2,315 lbs
Max. useful load : 996 lbs
Take off over 50 ft obstacle : 1,936 ft
Landing over 50 ft obstacle : 1,788 ft

Some of the performance numbers for the Robin dont look so good at first untill you take into account the Robin is doing this all with 99Lb of extra payload.

[jxc]

Ok so now i know warrior is better than a tb9 i will have to keep an eye open for one of them in east sussex area. The robin DR400 is what i would really like but seems to be working out at over double the cost of the tb9 share


Cheers

[A and C]

At the moment I run a DR400-180 & a PA28-180 and can't slide a cigarette paper between the two of them on operating cost, so I can't think why the TB9 should cost any more than a DR400.

The TB9 may well cost less to buy but I would take a very good look at the group finances before getting involved as the low cost may well hide some big bills just over the horizon.

[Fright Level]

The TB9 was produced as a trainer, not a touring a/c. Your kids will grow during the time you own the share in the plane and so you won't be able to go far with four up with some bags. In a group, this leaves the problem of how much fuel is in the tanks when you turn up at the airport en famille.

I had a share in a TB10 which was very capable but 90% of my trips were 2 or 3 up. You really need to fly a TB to see what the benefits are ("modern" interior design, great visibility, rear pax sit higher and get good vis out front etc).

A summary of the TB series:

TB9 Tampico O-320 160bhp - fixed gear & prop
TB10 Tobago O-360 180bhp - fixed gear, variable prop
TB20 Trinidad IO-540 250bhp - retractable gear, variable prop
TB21 - TIO-540 250bhp - retractable gear, variable prop & turbo normaliser (sea level to FL200)

I'd view the TB9 as a 150 but with seats in the back and look out for a TB10 share if you like the type. There are quite a few around.

[S-Works]

Performance wise the Robin DR400 will better the TB9 in all areas except standing out in the rain.

How can this be so A an C? according to IO540 it is a case of simple physics that aircraft with the same horsepower are all going to perform the same.


IO540 Wrote:
The TB9 is no worse on runway requirements than any other 4-seater with same engine HP, weight, and stall speed. How could it be? Physics is physics.

So how do we reconcile the physics?

[IO540]

From experience Socata seem adverse to using standard AGS so very often you will find that instead of being able to buy 'of the shelf items' you have to buy manufacturer's parts. Fuel & Oil hoses?It depends on which ones.

The hose between the fuel pump and the carb/fuel servo, and the hose between the latter and the injector spider, are standard Lyco parts which any hose shop can make up for about £40. If you get Teflon ones (£40) they are good for life (on a TB).

Same for the oil cooler hoses, IIRC.

Airframe-specific flexible hoses, 2 or 3 of those, are a "Socata special" which use ISO thread fittings, L43-215 type, and these fittings are expensive. Such a hose costs about £400 from Socata, or about £200 if you get them made by a hose shop (I have done this, email me for the details) which can get the fittings. Again, on a TB aircraft, Teflon hoses have no life limit.

AFAIK, the only time any of these hoses are a mandatory replacement is on the engine ones which are replaced at engine overhaul i.e. 2000hrs+. Not a significant problem considering the cost of an OH, and only 1 or 2 hoses.

To be fair, this is a real issue but only because maintenance shops tend to be slightly lazy and the UK ones tend to blindly buy parts from Air Touring. Anybody with initiative can easily find the parts from non-Socata sources. Socata have tried to make it hard by giving every last nut and washer a special P/N and most are not cross-referenced to the real ones. The idea, of course, is that the Socata dealer buys all parts from Socata.

But the whole GA business works on this kind of scam - they rely on lack of initiative and ignorance. Superficially it's easier on an N-reg because an 8130-3 is good but an 8130-3 (or any other traceability document whatsoever) is equally good for a non-PT G-reg; ref CAA AN-14 (which most people don't want you to know).

A large part of reducing the operating cost of a plane, especially an old one, is known as a "brain", and not simply buying everything from the dealer. True for a Socata, a Cessna, a Piper, everybody.

But there is no doubt that if you get stuck at Kathmandu you are better off with a Cessna. But.... since the cost of unscheduled maintenance depends heavily on the general condition of the plane, and in the later years being made up largely of airframe parts, so much depends on the plane's history.

Jxk - I will send you an email or a PM with some info.

[wsmempson]

Just to add my half-penny-worth re the Warrior, the book figures (weights and performance) quoted earlier only apply to new aircraft. The performance figures relate to performance at MAUW (2,325lb or 2440lb depending on the model) and the basic weights are seemingly those before you start adding modern kit.

My experience of renting 30-40 year old machinary is that it rarely performs as it did when it was brand new.

Looking at the club fleet of 6 Warriors that I learnt to fly on - which is as immaculate a fleet of pipers as you will find anywhere - I don't think any of those had a useful load of much more than 825lbs, due to the basic weight always being higher than the original book figure. Knock off 200lbs for fuel to tabs and you're down at 600lbs for pax and baggage.

Whether this is due to the gradual acquisition of lots avionics, paint, upholstery etc. over the years, or piper doing what Colin Chapman did when he homologated road cars for racing and declared an impossibly low basic weight, I couldn't say.

By all accounts, the same will almost certainly hold true of a TB9. I reckon for your mission capability, you need a step up from these two a/c. PA28 180/1 or Arrow, Cessna 182, TB10, a bigger engined Robin, etc.

[IO540]

Indeed, and the engines get progressively knackered too. Look at the AAIB report on that fatal PA28 departure from Sandown. The cams were so trashed the valve lift was reduced by about 40%. Almost nobody in GA does oil analysis and evidently not everybody even cuts open the oil filter.

[BigEndBob]

Years ago had TB9 at the flying school, couldn't wait to get rid of it.
Good for going places in a straight line, but thats about it.
Didn't seem to have a climb attitude therefore a bit rubbish for teaching on.

[A and C]

It is very simple it is all down to aerodynamics, the Robin has a very clever wing that reduces the induced drag in the cruise yet at slow speeds gives the full wing area over to lifting the aircraft.

A lot of atention has been given to reducing the parasite drag, if you look at the robin from the front you will see much smaller engine cooling inlets than on most american aircraft, this is just part of the drag reduction on the Robin.

[IO540]

Didn't seem to have a climb attitude therefore a bit rubbish for teaching on.That's interesting. How would one reach the certified ceiling of 11,000ft (http://www.socata.com/1024/en/General%20Aviation/aircraft/hidden/comparative%20chart%20TB.html) without a "climb attitude"?

:)

The 25kt max demo crosswind is also exceptional. On many days when it's 15-20kt across the runway, the place I am based at is quiet as a graveyard. The Cessnas and Pipers cannot fly. I have not yet (in 6.5 years) cancelled a flight due to excessive crosswind.

[S-Works]

The 25kt max demo crosswind is also exceptional. On many days when it's 15-20kt across the runway, the place I am based at is quiet as a graveyard. The Cessnas and Pipers cannot fly. I have not yet (in 6.5 years) cancelled a flight due to excessive crosswind.

Rubbish, want to see my trophy from the Guernsey Air Rally for landing in a 38kt direct crosswind.

We all know that the it is down to pilot ability and currency. Any Cessna or Piper is just as capable of flying as the TB in those conditions.

We all know you think the TB is the best thing since sliced bread, but lets keep it in the bounds of reality.

I am still looking forward to your lecture on simple physics.

[jxk]

IO540
Airframe-specific flexible hoses, 2 or 3 of those, are a "Socata special" which use ISO thread fittings, L43-215 type, and these fittings are expensive. Such a hose costs about £400 from Socata, or about £200 if you get them made by a hose shop (I have done this, email me for the details) which can get the fittings. Again, on a TB aircraft, Teflon hoses have no life limit.Yeap, I know all this, that's why I posted the hoses as an example of the different cost associated with the two types of aircraft being discussed. From a maintenance point of view there are other items such as the brake motors and access to what looks like a modular instrument panel which are both real pain to work on too.

Have to agree with previous posting about the efficiency of DR400 series and I especially liked the EcoFlyer with the Thielert engine. But, we all know the problems that Apex is having with the availability of this engine! DR's are also wood, fabric and fibre glass which does mean they should be hangared; more expense.

Sorry, Cessna & Piper spamcans are far more practical for most people.

[IO540]

brake motors and access to what looks like a modular instrument panelWhat is a "brake motor"?

The instrument cluster (which is not "modular" in any way) is in 3 parts, LH, RH and middle. The LH and RH are dead easy to get to. The middle one is hard to get to; the whole thing has to come out, but in the context of any work done on those avionics it doesn't matter. If you are having a GNS530 put in, the extra 2-3 hours will be trivial.

I especially liked the EcoFlyer with the Thielert engine

Well, there's a really great recommendation for a well supported engine with low cost assured-availability spares.

Confusion warning: two very similar pseudonyms in this thread: jxc and jxk.

[steveking]

Interesting about the take off performance of the types. How do the types compare in the cruise performance. I don't fly 4 seaters very often but a friend of mine has a Mooney and it seems to be a bit better in the cruise compared with an Arrow with the same engine. How does the TB 9 or TB10 compare.

[Fuji Abound]

Rubbish, want to see my trophy from the Guernsey Air Rally for landing in a 38kt direct crosswind.

I hope you are not claiming that as a record? :)

[jxk]

IO540

The instrument cluster (which is not "modular" in any way) is in 3 parts, LH, RH and middle. If it's not modular why is it in 3 parts?

[IO540]

The instrument cluster (which is not "modular" in any way) is in 3 parts, LH, RH and middle. If it's not modular why is it in 3 parts?

What is an instrument "cluster"?

The instrument panel (the usual aviation name) of a TB has three parts to it. The 2 end ones tilt forward and also there is rear access to each via exernal inspection panels. The middle part, which could be called a "cluster", is the fairly usual avionics construction which is used for pluggable avionics, comprising of an aluminium sheet fabricated box which has almost no access to the back of it and which has to come out whole to re-wire the instruments in it. Normally, one has radios, GPS and other pluggable items in the middle part, and these come out with a 3/32 allen key (but you knew that, hey?). The only time one needs to access the middle part of the TB instrument panel is when doing really major avionics work. The individual instruments just pull out.

I am merely trying to dispel the saaaaaaame ooooold rumours which go around GA about the TB range, repeated mostly by people who have never actually done the work on these types.

The reality is that a TB is constructed pretty conventionally throughout and any maintenance person with a brain and who can read (the MM) can work on it. For really major work, say installing a TCAS system, there are loads of gotchas as to how to remove e.g. the interior trim without making a mess, but how often does the average punter spend 5 digits on an avionics upgrade? And one would hope that if doing such an upgrade he will take the plane to a firm which does serious work on upmarket types, not some monkey.

The individual avionics e.g. altimeters etc are in the end sections which have excellent access. You can pop in a new altimeter in the time it takes to sort out the static hose on the back of it.

[jxc]

I only meant the robin dr400 being more expensive due to the fact the one i have seen and like in east sussex is 10k share and the TB9 not far from it is 4k i know both will probablt take offers the robin is the one i would really like but finances are a pain in the rear till early Feb

Jxc

[strake]

I've been away and have only just seen this thread....

I have owned/flown/shared many light a/c over the past 20 odd years but have owned a TB9 for the past 5 years.

I'm sure all the technical comments by better pilots than I on here are absolutely true but let me give you a little emotion......:p

The TB9:

- goes from Southend'ish area to Le Touq, Calais or Oostend, 3 up in about 50 minutes

- looks "right" in the cockpit

- looks "right" from outside

- has a proper throttle

- has sexy doors

- is forgiving of simple mistakes

- is "cheap" to run

- is mine and I love it.......;)

[Petroldrinker]

I run the TB-9 group that operates from Headcorn. I chose the aircraft with a group of friends to start the group a few years ago.

Most of the negative press associated with TB-9s is very exagerated. There is an awful lot of chat going on in club houses and sadly any negative press about any aircraft seems to have a snowball effect and usually clouds the truth.

The TB-9 is largely comparible to Warrior but as the TB-9 has a higher wing loading there are some differences in the handling characteristics. The operators handbooks would show better cruise, better fuel efficiency and nicer handling. The downsides are that the take-off is longer and the stall is more pronounced.

The real truth is however that the performance differences are tiny. My TB-9 is perhaps 3knts quicker for the same rpm as a Warrior, burns about 1 litre per hour less and honestly once you have properly familiarised yourself with the handling characteristics of the aircraft the take-off roll is much of a muchness. I operate from Headcorn which has a pretty rough runway at times and in the winter it can be very heavy going indeed! With my long range tanks I can fly with three men and full fuel when the runway is good. The aircraft is often used with four on board and (as with a Warrior) you must do your factors and fuel accordingly. In the depth of winter with the ground heavy we operate the aircraft as a two seater. The aircraft is maintained at a 500m farm strip and again there is never any performance issues. There comment about someone only just clearing a hedge is an alarming one that they really ought to investigate. They were either overloaded, the engine was not producing the power it should be or they were not flying correctly.

The TB-9 is a much nicer aircraft than the Warrior. The visability is better, the handling is lovely, the rear passengers get a much better ride and you don't have the ridiculous problem of only having one door. They are remarkably quiet and in my opinion they look beautiful too. The build quality is very good. Early models can get spar corrosion so get it inspected before you buy. I think that all of these ones are probably gone by now anyway but get an engineer that knows TBs to look at it. Other than that there are no inherent weaknesses.

If you want to come and share a flight in mine to see whether you like them or not (I wont be offended if you don't) then let me know.

Regards, Curtis.

[moona]

Hi Curtis, I would like to come for a flight with you :ok:

[mikehammer]

I have a share in a TB9, and before it a Cherokee 140. I see the weight comparison here between the Tampico and the Warrior, and am surprised. I don't know the weight difference between the Warrior and Cherokee, but on the ground and in the air, the TB9 SEEMS far heavier, and I always thought that was the case, but I never checked.

I used to drag the Chrokee out of our hangar myself, there's a small lip to get the wheels over, but with the TB9 it takes two people. Can't explain the physics, maybe I'm just older now! I really did think it was heavier!

I like both aircraft, but both are flawed, and as is well stated, the TB9 is not much of a load carrier. It's a bit like a Citroen or Renault inside, at first a quirky yet nice place to be; in time it's hammered!

If I had the choice, I think I'd go for the Warrior, I think Pipers fly more nicely (nothing to do with physics in my argument, just opinion), to me the TB9 seems a bit breathless, and it certainly needs more room to take off. Many advocate the 172 instead of both, but isn't it ugly? (Hard hat's already on!).

[IO540]

A TB will feel different to the traditional spamcans.

The wing loading is a lot higher so it handles differently; it feels like a bigger plane than say a Warrior. This is not a bad thing as it gives a much better ride in turbulence. One is not doing aerobatics in these things.

The TB ailerons feel heavier than PA28 ones. This is a complaint some have but it should have no impact on normal flying.

Not sure why a TB9 should feel heavier to pull. I can push and pull the TB20 (MTOW 1400kg) easily enough with a towbar, on a flat surface. Not on grass though.

The interior trim is a matter of taste, of course. I think that a TB suffers more from people "putting their boots through the instrument panel" more than a PA28 would, but that's because of the greater amount of trim used in the TB, whereas the old spamcans are pretty bare inside so can take rough treatment and damage more easily.

The two doors of a TB win hands down for pilot and passenger comfort. I really hated the way one has to climb over all the PA28 seats, tearing their coverings and possibly breaking their backs eventually. It's a shameful design which like a lot of things was acceptable in the post-WW2 austerity years, when people were about 1/3 thinner than today, and were grateful for anything they could get.

As for takeoff roll, that is straight down to thrust versus mass versus stall speed...