New to the Socata

[Mr Cessna]

I am flying the Socata TB10 for the first time this weekend and im not quite sure what to expect :confused: Firstly I cannot find alot of info online about its V-Speeds I.e. take off speed, landing speed etc I was wondering if anyone could enlighten me and give me an idea of what its like to fly before hand

Thanks in advance :ok:

[IO540]

Is there a pilot operating handbook (POH)? There must be.

I fly a TB20 (a very different aircraft though).

If you are new to the type then somebody who knows it should go with you.

[tb10driver]

pm me. i have one.

[chris-h]

I fly a TB10, When i first started flying it i noticed it's a very slippy a/c compared to the PA38 'tomahawk' id been used to.
The vp prop took quite a bit of getting used to, so flying regularly at first was important for me.
Since then iv grown to love the aeroplane and could only see myself upgrading to a TB20 if my lottery numbers came in.
chris

[englishal]

Pretty docile, glides like a brick, not very fast but quite comfortable.

[IO540]

It's a very people-friendly civilised aircraft. None of this daft climbing in through one door which is on the wrong side of the cockpit anyway, damaging all the seats as one climbs over the back of them, etc.

The performance is about the same as other fixed gear planes of that HP and weight and cockpit cross-sectional area. The Vs is a bit higher than some of the PA28 family which means you need a longer runway, but it cruises faster (for the same fuel flow) than those types as a result. No free lunch :)

[Rod1]

“The performance is about the same as other fixed gear planes of that HP and weight and cockpit cross-sectional area.”

I would say the performance is poor given it has a VP prop. Expect similar numbers to an AA5B and slower than a DR400-180. I am not sure how successful the design was in terms of numbers sold, but you do not see many around.

Rod1

[IO540]

The performance cannot be much different given the other parameters. The TB range has a significantly bigger cockpit CSA/volume than most common GA 4-seaters. Physics is physics, as they say...

Have you compared actual figures rather than the standard pilot forum reports from people who have never opened up the POHs?

They sold poorly after about 1990, due to being too pricey. It's a really nice plane but the market at that level is very price sensitive. In 2002, one school I was hanging around at the time bought three brand new Cessna 172s for about £120k each + VAT (from CSE) and the TB10 was priced at the time at about £160k+V, which was silly.

A new TB20 was £197k+V at the time (with prop TKS, KI-229 RMI, Shadin fuel flow, 3B prop) which made it a no-brainer for anybody in that market; the TB20 is vastly more capable. And I discivered years later that Air Touring sold some of those at the time for as little as £170k+V :)

The TB10 sold well in the 1980s, which is why you see very few newer ones around. Those you do see tend to be in a less than great condition because - unlike the common spamcans - the more "styled" car-like interior which contains a fair bit of plastic trim does not cope well with people kicking the interior with their boots :)

[Rod1]

“Have you compared actual figures rather than the standard pilot forum reports from people who have never opened up the POHs?”

Well – I have owned an AA5B and a DR400. I investigated a TB10 but discounted it as slow and expensive (prop) at the time (I did fly it). My memory was 127 ish kn, which is similar to the AA5B and much slower than the DR400 (at same fuel burn).

“Physics is physics, as they say...”

As the three aircraft have the same engine but radically different construction I think this is not relevant.

Rod1

[pistongone]

I flew G-TZEE from Earls Coln to Theux near Spa and back. The chap doing the check flight insisted running it @2100 rpm and low MAP, which gave about 105Kn. Coming back we upped it to something like 24 square and it gave about 115Kn. Compared to G-SARA an Archer we used from Elstree which would do about 125Kn at 2400 no wobbly prop!
The doors can be a pain in wind or rain and the yoke moves through a slightly strange axis, but not an issue, just strange? The interior is worlds apart from the usual stuff. Personally i prefer the 172 range for general usage, the back seats have a lot of leg room which i found out when cost sharing a flight and they can get into the shorter strips quite well. The TB10 doe's have an unusual starting procedure though, with alternator switches on and off in some sequence that i just followed, but didnt really make sense of. Perhaps IO540 knows what that is all about:confused:
But it is a nice plane and will impress non flyers a lot more than an old school hack, you pays your money etc!

[IO540]

I used to fly G-SARA too :)

Have you compared fuel flow rates for the same IAS?

The prop is almost irrelevant if one is talking about MPG in cruise. A fine pitch prop will deliver the same thrust as a coarse pitch prop, but will do it at a higher RPM and a lower torque.

No idea about the starting sequence. It should not be anything unusual - unless somebody invented something.

TB doors are quite good in rain because the rain doesn't go in (much) when you open them. They have to be watched in wind though - especially if the gas struts are knackered as they usually are in old planes.

[pistongone]

Was that when Mr Morley used to run the group and do the radio? Would have been 1995 era? Good bloke he was:ok: Not forgetting Geoffrey and his orange, windsock style trousers, some say his voice was so powerful it would permeate the Radio transmissions from the masts(Capital Gold?) on long final for 28.

[IO540]

I flew G-SARA in 2000-2002 when (I was told) it was owned by an accountant from Ferring who leased it to a school. In fact his name was on a plate in the cockpit. The story was that it was bought by a man for his wife called Sara and then she s*****d some other bloke and left him, so he left it for 15 years sitting in a field, rotting, and then the next owner restored it.

It flew quite well.

The avionics were duff; the DME indicated random values around 5nm (so it was plausible quite a lot of the time on a typical IAP), the VOR read all kinds of things (but showed no flags) but the ADF worked great. I did the ADF parts of the IMC Rating in it, with the instructor holding a £50 GPS from Millets as the "DME" and calling out the readings, and did the VOR/ILS parts in another PA28 which had a U/S ADF.

Great stuff ...

[englishal]

My memory was 127 ish kn
I used to be in a syndicate with a TB10, from my memory you could take AT LEAST 10 kts off that...I seem to remember about 110kts was a comfortable cruise.

[Rod1]

IO originally stated;

“The performance is about the same as other fixed gear planes of that HP and weight and cockpit cross-sectional area.”

englishal if your figures are right then the thing is massively slower! A DR400 would be 17kn faster on the same power! My tests were run at 75%, but it was back in the 90’s and the TB was in very good shape. The prop appears to add complexity without making up for what I assume is poor aerodynamics. I do not remember the w & b, is the TB a true 4 seater ?

Rod1

[pistongone]

IO just looked in the book and the '95 era was when it was based at Elstree, it was white hull with black stripes, normal radios etc, A/P was U/S i think! if you look up ginfo it was shortly after this period it came to reside in your neck of the woods:ok: The story does seem to ring a bell though:E Must agree with English, 115kn seems to be my memory of something like 75% settings on the TB10. I used to fly a 180 Arrow out of Stapleford but the fuel was in US Gallons/hour about 9 or 10 in the cruise? 35-40 ltrs/hr then? A PA32 i flew out of Turweston many times had the IO540 engine and you could get that back to 60 ltrs/hr in the cruise without it getting too hot! But you are shifting 6 pax at 135kn so not too shabby! If you do the ltrs per passenger mile calcs, the PA32 comes out very well, so do Mooneys i think? Sorry for the thread creep:O

[englishal]

I think it carried load ok. I had 3 adults and 1 child in it once and it seemed fine (don't ask me the numbers I can't remember!). Also I believe you can fit a 3rd rear seat belt making for a 5 seater which would be very useful if you have some kids - and due to the larger cabin it could actually carry 5 (small) people I reckon.

Certainly they are comfortable and a good ride and would be fine for long distance touring. Much better than a PA28 in terms of comfort though not for short fields.

[IO540]

This TB10 v PA28-XXX debate pops up regularly. A while ago, on Flyer I think, somebody actually got some POH figures out, and they were similar for similar fuel flows.

With old planes, it is easy to end up comparing one wreck with one slightly lesser wreck. I used to fly planes which would fly 10-15kt slower than they should, and nobody knew why, nor did anybody care.

Getting out of the self fly hire scene was a breath of fresh air...

I would expect a TB10 to fly a bit slower than an Archer, because it has a roomier cockpit.