Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Socata TBs - future support etc

Quote Does anybody in Europe buy new planes for PPL training?

Goodwood and the Integrated Schools have new aircraft – admittedly the Integrated Schools are providing zero to hero courses beyond the PPL.

Some of the modular schools have new Multis and RG for the CPL/Multi/IR component.

The Garmin 1000/26G/Airbags 172SP is not a bad proposition in terms of improved safety/functionality, although using an inflation adjustment from the BLS it should be costing less than $100K in 2013, and not the $300k new price!

Oxford (EGTK), United Kingdom

I agree that the best economy is to run an old dog that you paid peanuts for. The issue is that the appeal is next to zero, for new students, and the instructor, i.e. me…
As soon as the hours go up to 300-400/yr and above, the capital costs actually make little impact, and a fuel saving will be able to offset or eliminate the difference. This is why a “professional” flight school can afford to buy new DA20 or even DA40, Warriors and C172s to do the training. In a club like ours, anything above 50kEUR would add too much fixed cost and not enough cost savings on fuel. I’ve done the math back and forth. CAE just ordered a complete line-up of Pipers, Warriors, Seminoles and Senecas to replace the old gear. 30 something aircraft! But, what sort of money do the students pay for their future job, 120kEUR or more I think.

The TB refurb idea is more a question of doing something different on the market and possibly at a reasonable cost. Because they ar no longer built by Socata, perhaps there is a market for revamped old ones…? Or maybe not.
I’ve found that most of my students have opted to fly the PA28 when given the option of a “brand X” two-seater. Probably because the cost difference has been insignificant and the kinds of students we have are ok with a 11-13kEUR price span for their PPL.

ESSB, Stockholm Bromma

> Does anybody in Europe buy new planes for PPL training?>

True and that’s why I would love to see someone like Oxford move their training back to the UK. Of the 5 flying schools that I have worked at in the last 20 years two of them used fleets that where discarded from them and they still do. I would love to see this knock on effect return.

I disagree peter its 18 grand for a zero timed o360 refitted to an aircraft. Doubling the time that you have to fork this out seems a fair bit of cash in the kitty to me.

Last Edited by Bathman at 01 Jan 16:01

perhaps there is a market for revamped old ones

Regarding selling rebuilt TBs, I would think – but I would say that, wouldn’t I? – that a bang up to date TB20GT/21GT would sell well. The airframe/cockpit is superb and most will be in a good condition. But very few come on the market, they are pricey, and frankly every potential customer is in the same position as me i.e. no real point in refitting it with new eye candy unless one of the following things happen in Europe

  • PRNAV enroute becomes mandatory below FL200, or
  • LPV becomes relevant

I don’t think people would pay for a rebuilt TB10 because it will still not be “new” and you would be able to buy a TB20GT for the same money.

I disagree peter its 18 grand for a zero timed o360 refitted to an aircraft. Doubling the time that you have to fork this out seems a fair bit of cash in the kitty to me.

18k over 2k hrs versus over 4k hrs is £4.50/hr difference. What does the fuel cost? I am not saying £4.50/hr is not worth having but if you move the red lever back about 2mm you will probably achieve the same thing. Why not fit an EDM700 into your training planes?

Last Edited by Peter at 01 Jan 16:48
Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I think in the MEP world things are abit different. The current crop of aztec, cougar, duchess, seneca are well and truly shagged. There are no suitable aircraft in private hands that could be purchased as replacements AND there are suitable modern alternative da42, 2006 with vastly reduced running costs.

I can’t for the life of me understand why oxford went for Seneca 5 mind you.

Seneca is tried and true, robust and roomy, with all the bells and whistles one could desire. They probably have more tools to repair them at CAE than Piper have in their manufacturing plant by now.

I think, given CAE Oxfords student base, that they might well equip the Senecas for a two-crew op, dual PFDs etc, thereby introducing some airliner thinking from the beginning. At least, I hope they’re taking that opportunity. Another major reason could be the commonality of the Cherokee line. It’s all the same in various flavor. Going to the DA42 means the aircraft is different. But I’m just guessing. Piper probably gave them a pretty good price on the package too.

In the end all you need to do, at an establishment such as CAE, is to jack up the already obnoxious pricing to become an airline prostitute and your operation is safe and sound. RYR, EasyJet and all the other “-beep – deleted due to very foul language” need new suckers to pay for jet time at the training airlines of the world and it seems there’s an abundance of candidates.

I’ve trained students in the Seneca, DA42 and P2006, and they all do the job. The Seneca is more airplane imho, the DA42 is a decent modern ship (a bit too easy) and the P2006 is a C172 with two engines. Very light weight, easy to fly, perfect for a private owner with a 500m grass strip. It will give you the ME rating at a low cost but won’t prepare you for the King Air.

ESSB, Stockholm Bromma

This pic shows a view into the side of the centre avionics stack of a TB20GT

The big round connector marked with the tick is how connections into the centre stack should be made – or via some other connector. Then you can just unplug them and pull the stack out, for major bench work.

The encircled part of the pic shows a load of wires which look like they are going directly into the centre stack. These include the Gray code altimeter wires and most of them were clearly put in by …. Socata!

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

… btw I found out that every TB20 equipped with King GPS at the factory also got the a.m. equipment cooling blower KA33. It’s a must acc. to the KLN90B installation manual. In the Socata “Illustrated Part Catalogue” I found this fan under GPS. And indeed I found it in my aircraft – best way to see it is by opening the L/H inspection plate (211L). So I don’t need to buy one – however I think it does not work. Never heard it running in summer under high temp conditions. And I had some heat related temporary equipment failures with my Weather 1000+ and my KX 165 no.2 radio. Maybe the thermistor is the culprit …

EDxx, Germany

[Hope this thread isn’t a bad place for this]

How Daher Builds the TBM Turboprop – AvWeb


I think @Peter and the other TB owners owners will have interest seeing the video bit at 3:15 where they show all ’the old machines kept for spare parts of the TB series"

EHLE, Netherlands

Interesting video.

Socata stated a few years ago that they no longer made custom made airframe parts, but continued to re-sell the parts they bought in. The former airframe parts were being sourced via a programme of buying-back crashed and abandoned airframes and recertifying the parts (which BTW is a big and very lucrative business with large jets). They said this to both myself and to a visitor who spoke fluent French, so there is no question that it was said.

I don’t know to what extent the above was ever true, or whether / to what extent it is true today. But given the huge size of their factory and the value of the TB parts business (a few M € a year) it probably makes sense for them to make the bits they can make easily – basically pressed metal parts which cost virtually nothing in material cost and thus cost very little to make a batch of say 100 (enough to last say 30 years) and just keep them in stock.

Currently there are no known issues with obtaining Socata TB parts. I have had no trouble getting even obscure stuff like the rubber landing gear stops. Prices might be higher than Cessna/Piper parts but in reality all airframe parts are eye-wateringly expensive and the consumption rate of airframe parts is a major factor in the operating cost. And the consumption rate of airframe parts is related mostly to the level of abuse / non-hangarage in the past.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom
40 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top