Looking for a first airplane - TB9?

I guess the fuel rate burn of the AA5A is similar to the TB9/10, right?? But 120kt seems a pretty good speed for cross-country flights.

Very close to the same. The engines are very slightly different with higher compression ratio on the TB9, but some AA5As have that by STC too. It provides 160 HP versus 150 HP on the same fuel consumption, or slightly lower fuel burn with the same power. This difference is however completely overwhelmed by the difference in the airframes in this comparison.

Lower compression means also means adaptability to Mogas. I would not myself run a higher compression O-320 on Mogas regardless of legalities.

What about the behaviour of the AA5A in turbulence???

It’s OK, slightly lower wing loading than a TB9 but higher than many other comparable aircraft. Which brings to mind that neither of them are short runway length aircraft, make sure you understand them in that regard.

By the way the ‘preferred’ version of the AA5 is the AA5B Tiger with 180 HP instead of 150 HP but they are more expensive.

If you go back far enough you find that the Grummans are descended from a homebuilt (the Bede BD1) and that’s why their construction is relatively simple and maintainable. Also why they look a little boxy from some angles and why they are a little more speed oriented than their direct competitors. The history of the series is here if you’re interested.

I know nothing about the types under discussion. But 2 points:
1) Is “mogas” available alcohol-free at your likely refuelling places? If not, it is irrelevant to you.
2) The “soon-to-be-needed” maintenance is much more important than the purchase price.
An inspection by YOUR engineer is essential.
In recent years two aircraft out of the few bought to my homebase have been found to have excessive corrosion on inspection here. One was written-off.
My aircraft has had no unexpected problems after 5 years, but spending on expected upgrades is > initial low purchase price.

Perhaps start with what and where you can have maintaned. Relocation for maintenance can have lots of frustration. ’You’re not available to relocate when they are available’ and vice-versa. Or you collect, and on the 1st flight, find an issue that requires a return to maintenance etc.
Once you are sure what will be maintainable within sensible efforts, you’ll have a short list.

The TB series certainly is nice and worth looking at. However, the TB9 in my opinion is not the ideal plane to own, primarily as it is very weak on performance.

garratc wrote:

Stability is something I am searching for (Family issues…..), and I guess TB9 could be a good choice.

More than stability you have to consider weight and balance!! If you wish to fly your family, you will find that almost ALL 4 seaters are a massive problem there. Before looking at anything else, therefore I’d suggest that you look at how much weight you have to carry and then make sure the plane you are looking at can do that! Be realistic: Families will become rebellious very fast if they can’t take their airline contingent of baggage, which for 4 people means 80-100kg in baggage only.

As for the TB9, also particularly regarding WnB, I would think it is a trainer, not a plane to be used for travel and not a plane I’d recommend as a personal plane. If you want to stay with the TB series, the TB10 is the much better option: 180 hp, 120 kt and a better payload with the same comfortable interior.

As for the AA5A, true, it is a great little airplane for 2-3 people. If you want to haul 4 regularly, I’d recommend the AA5B Tiger, which has better payload and more performance due to it’s 180 hp engine. The AA5B is a very economical airplane in the sense that it has a rather high cruise speed for a non-complex airplane (135-140 kt, so in the ballpark of the Arrow) and is therefore a pretty good solution for someone who wants decent speed without breaking the bank for maintenance.

Peter wrote:

the Arrow (PA28R) is the cheapest retractable so a lot of people buy it who can barely afford to look after it, hence so many of them are shagged. This issue will be amplified in Spain where for various reasons (e.g. the economic collapse, and the hot wx) planes for sale tend to be in a poor condition.

Arrows are quite good at a lot of things: Some of them have astonishing payload and they are reasonably fast (135 kt) for the money. The original Arrow has 180 hp but the II has a 200 hp injected engine. Starting with the Arrow III they also have a quite decent range.

But if we are talking TB9/10, that is non-complex with fixed gear, I would have a very good look at PA28-180/Archers too, particularly as family airplanes. They have really good payload usually and will travel at 115-125 kts, have pretty neat short field performance and can be maintained by really every maintenance shop there is. They are also unproblematic with parts and therefore quite easy to keep as first airplanes. Several people I have assisted over the years settled for PA28’s, mostly the -180, the Challenger or the Archers after looking at TB’s and other makes first.

I would disagree with the TB9 as a trainer. Most of the clubs, I know, who have had one in their fleet have used them more as the first plane pilots move on to after gaining the PPL. It was too costly for initial training but as it has a different more, shall I say more airline feel, many PPLs used them as an initial progression. A few hours in the clubs TB9 then onto the TB10 and/or TB20 and get night and instrument ratings.
Not many clubs owned a TB10 or TB20 so they tended to become the first owner plane.
But you have to remember that there was/is bias here as most clubs still buy French.
Personally, I think the TB20 is the best SEP for touring there is, especially if you want to progress to IR. Sadly they are no longer manufactured and some would say they don’t have a parachute. But I would point out that they cost a lot less than a pre owned Cirrus of similar capability. And IMO they have better ramp appeal.
Again I am as biased as many of my compatriots.🙂

gallois wrote:

Personally, I think the TB20 is the best SEP for touring there is, especially if you want to progress to IR.

I fully agree.

The TB9 is to the TB10 what the Warrior is to the Archer. Only that the Warrior is lighter and a bit faster.

Some very good points made above.

I would suggest to look at:
- payload. If you intend to fly with your family, most SEP 4 seaters are challenged in that respect.

- comfort for pax. Again an issue for flying with family. For example, not everyone enjoys crawling in and out through the single door of a PA28.

- maintenance availability. Your profile doesn’t say where you’re based, but not having mx on the field is a bigger problem in Spain than in most countries due to the relatively sparse aviation infrastructure (excluding UL fields, of which there are plenty).

garratc wrote:

Also, I don´t really care (at this moment) about power, I prefer to give out power to get more economical. What’s your opinion???

I would not compromise on power. More power gives you more flexibility. It allows you to get into shorter and/or higher density altitude airfields. Also, you mentioned family – what is your typical use case? 3 persons? 4 persons? What is their weight? With that load, is the aircraft performance sufficient for your planned airfields?

If you want to fly more economical, you can always tune down RPM. I have only the data point corresponding to my bird, a 180hp Robin DR253:
1) at 2550-ish RPM I get 130-135kt at ~35 liter/hr
2) at 2400 RPM I get 120-125kt at ~30 liter/hr
3) at 2000 RPM I get about 100kt at ~20-25 liter/hr

3 is similar cruise speed and consumption as a 120hp-powered Robin. However, compared to the 120hp Robin, I have an MTOW of 1100kg (vs 865 for the 120hp) and much better short field capability.