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.......

[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 availability

That 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.