I would not compromise on power.
Yes – mostly although not invariably, smaller engined versions of the same plane are produced for marketing reasons only. If the larger engine is of the same configuration as smaller engine, e.g. a four cylinder Lycoming there is no difference in production cost and little difference in weight. The main technical limit for the larger engine is if you wanted to run it at such
a low power setting (say under 50% power) to save fuel burn per hour that it wouldn’t operate smoothly. Otherwise the higher powered version offers more safety, more utility, more climb rate and essentially unchanged economy if you throttle back.
I went this route some months ago, being in France, and more or less let the TB10 down. I have flown several TB10 and most of them was a bit underpowered because of a tired engine, and this plane doesn’t really like tired engine, and loose its performance easily.
The main problem with the TB10 (and 9) is that there are very few of them compared to TB20, and most of them are aged around 9K hours, where there is some work to plan ahead: Engine mount is due at 10k hours and practically impossible to find. The doors must be taken some good attention because they are also almost impossible to find. One of the used TB10 I tried did show cracks on the doors, and owner didn’t say but I think he was selling because of them.
I am done with it, looking for other kinds…
The TB9 with the CS prop is an underrated aeroplane. I see there is one on Planecheck, you don’t see them very often. Flown light they do well.
TB9 and TB10 sales had been poor since about 1990, due to Socata’s pricing. And the TB20 is no comparison at all, on every metric. The TB21 is something else… and you have to accept the standard turbo issues like a top overhaul at 1k hrs or less… another debate.
TB10 with a CS prop is a pretty good plane. No comparison with a Warrior or Archer, unless you enjoy climbing into tunnels and bunkers on Alderney 
I have 100+ hrs on the PA28s.
Silvaire wrote:
Yes – mostly although not invariably, smaller engined versions of the same plane are produced for marketing reasons only.
Agree. And while this makes a difference when buying new, the difference is less (sometimes inexistent) on the used market.
Our club TB9 had a variable pitch prop. 3 adults 2 female 1 male of average weight was no problem going to grass fields like Thouars LFCT or Couhé Verac LFDV ( or tarmac strips like Sarlat Domme LFDS.But all of them are reasonably long. Eg LFDS is the shortest of these at 747m on a plateau.
I don’t recall taking it anywhere shorter with 3 adults or the range at that. It doesn’t mean to say it’s not possible, just that I don’t remember if I did. My last flight in a TB9 was a very long time ago.🙂
The enemy of the TB9/10 is the heat. Lift take a hit on a wing that doesn’t really needs it and of course the engine. C172 and pa28 ((and DRs) doesn’t suffer as much.
I’d probably go for the TB10, much better performance for very similar fuel burn. Our long term average over four years of ownership is about 35L per hour. Best range cruise where most people end up flying it VFR is 33L per hour, although the sweet spot is at 8000ft where 35L gives 119KTAS.
Prop overhauls are going to be a bit more expensive but everything else is going to be very similar. Differences training for the constant speed prop is a couple of hours.
The enemy of the TB9/10 is the heat. Lift take a hit on a wing that doesn’t really needs it and of course the engine. C172 and pa28 ((and DRs) doesn’t suffer as much.
That would surprise me. The density altitude factor should affect all wing profiles the same way.
I’d probably go for the TB10, much better performance for very similar fuel burn
I agree. All GA planes are really underpowered. Well, maybe not the Jetprop
It may be related to the higher wing loading combined with low speed. I am not expert in aerodynamic, but just wouldn’t be surprised. I have flown TB10, C172 and PA28 at MTOW by 30+ °C, and TB10 is more affected.
