Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

TB9 and TB10 performance comparison

You’re right! Started writing “slightly”, then found out the numbers and forgot to correct. That’s now done.
Strange that we have such high discrepancies.

My POH provides data for “concrete” paved runway, as opposed to macadam runway. A correction factor must then be applied:
+10% for macadam
+17% for hard lawn
+20% for short grass
+37% for high grass

Since yours is a “BRD” version, it could be that the German authorities, at the time, imposed a different reference surface.
So make sure you compare apples with apples…

Forgot to tell you one last thing: on the TB10 (can’t remember for the TB9 and don’t have the POH right there), MTOW is 1150 kg but max landing weight is only 1092kg. This means you cannot do a short sightseeing flight (eg. 30min) at MTOW. You need to fly at least ~1h30 to make sure your land within limits.

Re your initial question (TB9 or TB10): now that you’re aware of both types limitations and considering your mission profile, I do not see any reason to go for the TB10 rather than the TB9. Except, maybe, that you could find a GT TB10, while the GT TB9 are very, very scarce (I only know 3 in France, all operated by Airways training).

Last Edited by Alboule at 30 Apr 14:17
LFNR

My limited experience of the TB9 and TB10 is that the TB10 is way better in practice. I have been in one, at around MTOW, an we had a ground roll (takeoff) of 350m on short smooth grass, so say 600m smooth grass is feasible.

Grass of course varies hugely and 600m on good grass can be 1000m on tall grass with a bad surface under it. My TB20 once needed about 1000m to get off one grass “runway”… but it gets off tarmac in about 350m.

The TB aircraft are wonderfully nice for going places. They have big windows, spacious comfortable cockpits, and two doors which sets them way apart from all the one-door types in which people have to climb in over the top of everything, destroying the upholstery in the process and making it practically impossible to exit in an emergency if there is a “non agile” person next to the door.

The higher wing loading gives a very noticeably better ride in turbulence.

By the time the GT came out in 2000, TB9 and TB10 sales were negligible (see here ) due to overpricing by Socata. The TB10 was about £150k but you could buy a C172 for £120k (minus a 10-20% discount if you were a school and getting more than 1). And the TB20, which completely outclasses the TB10, was £195k with all factory options except full TKS (all plus VAT). Plus, there was the widespread perception of high maintenance costs and parts availability which was never actually true. Socata parts cost pretty much the same as Cessna or Piper parts e.g. €10k for an elevator, etc. Accordingly, a TB10GT will be hard to find.

Good luck with your new aircraft ownership project. You will never regret it because it will transform your flying

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Hi,
If the OP is looking for a TB10 that is going for TB9 money then drop me a PM. I have one.

Regards,

Buying, Selling, Flying
EISG, Ireland

Just a little update.
Thank you all above for all tips and support.
On August last year decided and bought TB 9.
Within one month made over 40 hrs, flying locally as well as trips to Lithuania, Gyor, Portoroz and Venice Lido :)
Love this plane!!!
Having some 90 hrs in PA 28 Archer III I must say TB 9 is indeed slightly slower and needs more attention when choosing where to land/take of but…
comfort, visibility, handling, the way it looks – in my personal opinion, way better.
Haven’t checked performance against POH yet but will do it since I’m really curious taking a look on data I posted earlier.
One thing checked. Using JPI EDM/leaning mixture, fuel consumption can be reached as per the book or even slightly better.
So once again thank you for support and hope to meet you somewhere, since I’m planning to reach this year as far south as Greece and as far west as France/Spain.
All the best!

EPXX

Brilliant that you made the move, Kristof, and thanks for the report. Once you get your own plane you will never go back, especially if it delivers value in terms of getting to nice places.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

If I remember correctly it is also possible to install constant speed prop from MT propellers to TB9. It costs a over 10 000€ to do it but anyway the possibility is there.

In one article about TB9 they said that you can get few more knots in TB9 by going little higher than cruise level and then descending to cruise altitude. Congratulations, TBs are very nice airplanes.

EFHF

Congratulations Kristof! Maybe you could share a few pics of your plane?

LFNR

@Kristof
If 95-100 knots and 700 meter minimum runway length doesn’t bother you, and the UL works, then it sounds like the TB9 at half price is a good choice.

(Speaking as owner of a predecessor plane—180HP Rallye—but I have never flown TB9 or TB10. I always knew I wanted a minimum of 180HP which structured my decision making process.)

Ahh… reading further, I see you bought the plane! Good for you!

Last Edited by WhiskeyPapa at 16 Jan 21:57
Tököl LHTL

WhiskeyPapa wrote:

If 95-100 knots and 700 meter minimum runway length doesn’t bother you,

95/100 kts is fine, I’m flying for pleasure not for business, however 700 mtr minimum runway limit?
Where did you get it from? Above conversation?
If so then there’s a good news, 500 paved is enough, if it was 700m then I’d be dead by now knowing places I’ve been operating from.
Sure 180hp would be better – but double/triple money for 10-20 more knots, which I’d rather hide in fuel tanks enjoying flying a bit longer ;)

WhiskeyPapa wrote:

but I have never flown TB9 or TB10

Try TB9/TB10, you’ll like it!!!

Alboule wrote:

Maybe you could share a few pics of your plane?

It’s being polished now :)

Last Edited by Kristof at 17 Jan 12:50
EPXX
19 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top