Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Restarting the TB20

I continue to think the biggest problem for (re)starting production of an SEP is that without some kind of extra hook to bring in new customers, like Cirrus’ parachute, there isn’t a very good value proposition relative to existing designs.

All of the existing SEP designs, save the Cirrus, date from no later than the 70s, and are quite well amortized in terms of certification, tooling, and so on. Furthermore, while not exciting, most of them have decent enough performance all told, particularly because they all share the same horizontal opposed air cooled engines, so they’re all really just looking for different locations on the space/speed/range/handling charts.

So, a new player either has to offer some sort of special hook:
-new powerplant paradigm
-parachute
-lower operating costs

while still delivering better performance than the existing fleet. Otherwise why would anyone spend 300k+ on a new SEP design when they can buy a Bonanza or a TB20 or whatever and really do an overhaul on that? If anything, that’s probably easier to keep up to date than the newer G1000 planes because the panel can be upgraded without messing with the type certificate, which I believe has bit some of the later Mooney owners in their wallet rather hard. The existing overhang in the fleet, combined with the reduced number of pilots each year, at least to me, strikes me as fatal for new SEP production outside of a few specific customers, (governments, high volume flight schools in Florida) until they come up with a truly new hook for the product, for the foreseeable future.

United States

I found the TB20 cockpit to have catastrophic ergonomics, especially all those circuit breakers and switches which are completely obscured by my left leg/knee. Maybe the setup is better in the TB20GT? I’ve only flown a 1984 model for less than three hours so far, but found both the C172 and especially the Aquila A210 to have a better cockpit layout. Then again those two are less complex aircraft with fixed gear, so the comparison might be unfair.

I think it may be unfair, because the latter types have a lot less “stuff” in the panel.

The stuff to the left of your left leg is just a CB panel. You can count them

There is not anywhere else they can go and still be within easy (a) inspection and (b) reach. And it is necessary to be able to inspect them all at a glance – something a lot of builders don’t realise. Admittedly the above is my later refurbished and reworked one, with some extras, but the overall size is the same.

The TB20 cockpit was designed from ground up to be a full IFR panel; at least in the 1980s/1990s style. Today, with glass, you have a bit more room. The C172 was originally a minimalist VFR aircraft. The A210?

But it isn’t that simple once you get to marketing and target audiences. There is little doubt in my mind that the US market in particular prefers the huge flat panel, with instruments sprinkled all over it – because that’s how it always was. To them, the TB always looked “very Renault” and anyway they always regarded anything French with suspicion; more so after certain events surrounding the Gulf wars… much as much of mainland Europe dislikes anything American. It was only the great marketing exercise by Cirrus (the “smiling happy wife and kids” idea) which overcame the conservatism in the US market.

And avionics shops mostly hate the TBs and load up the quotes, not realising the later models, 1990s sometime, came with the two access panels which transform access.

So, a new player either has to offer some sort of special hook:
-new powerplant paradigm
-parachute
-lower operating costs

I tend to agree, because – contrary to what many think, and in agreement with Antonio in another thread – knocking say 1/3 of the price would not bring in more business.

To enter a market, and a TB restart would be a new entry in reality, you have to offer something fairly radical. Cirrus did it with the chute and slick marketing (the rest was conventional). In the USA you would sell a new powerplant, because few would trust it (Thielert destroyed the new engine business there for decades), but in Europe this would help. But still nobody would trust a new diesel installation – even of a proven engine. The operating costs? They are dominated by the fuel…

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

To enter a market, and a TB restart would be a new entry in reality, you have to offer something fairly radical.

Not that you could do it with a TB, but I wonder if you could do it by moving somewhere different on the performance curve. Most of the SEP fleet is set up as 4 or 4+2 seaters with cabins, but I bet 98%+ of the time are flown as two seaters with extra luggage or W&B envelope. So, would moving to something like a cleaned up SF-260 (2 seats, good canopy, long range at high speeds for a SEP because of the smaller fuselage cross section) give you a new enough market, or not?

United States

Peter wrote:

There is little doubt in my mind that the US market in particular prefers the huge flat panel, with instruments sprinkled all over it – because that’s how it always was. To them, the TB always looked “very Renault”

I think the main issue there was not “Renault” styling per se, it was simply the introduction of styling features that weren’t durable and made panel upgrades harder. It’s true that a large segment of US airplane people are not the type to get swept off their feet by styling for its own sake. BTW notwithstanding their traditionally fantastic seats, few US-based new aircraft buyers today would recognize a Gallic car interior – its been about 30 years since they were on local sale (except in Mexico, where Renaults are manufactured and Peugeots are on sale).

Peter wrote:

It was only the great marketing exercise by Cirrus (the “smiling happy wife and kids” idea) which overcame the conservatism in the US market.

If there’s one section of the market that wants to buy an airborne car (stylistically) and another that wants practicality in whatever form, one compromise is ‘Toyota Look’ because at least it comes across as inoffensive and durable whether or not it promotes long term practicality. Maybe that’s why the appearance of a Cirrus is so completely anodyne.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 02 Nov 00:05

Silvaire wrote:

I think the main issue there was not “Renault” styling per se, it was simply the introduction of styling features that weren’t durable and made panel upgrades harder.

Indeed. It is a quirky panel. You either love it or hate it.

EGTK Oxford

I wonder if you could do it by moving somewhere different on the performance curve. Most of the SEP fleet is set up as 4 or 4+2 seaters with cabins, but I bet 98%+ of the time are flown as two seaters with extra luggage or W&B envelope. So, would moving to something like a cleaned up SF-260 (2 seats, good canopy, long range at high speeds for a SEP because of the smaller fuselage cross section) give you a new enough market, or not?

It is indeed an interesting idea.

One possible issue is that the $300k+ market wants 4 seats, even if they aren’t used. And a 2-seater would have to be down-priced even though it costs almost as much to make as a 4-seater.

I recall reading, maybe 10-15 years ago, that the French DGAC, in an attempt to revive what they described as a collapsing GA aircraft scene in France, and after doing a huge survey of French GA flying patterns they were going to sponsor the development of a 3-seat aircraft. I don’t think this went anywhere but it is one data point – probably an obvious one to most of us since most 4 seaters can take 3 with full tanks but almost none can take 4 and even if they can take 4 they then can’t carry the luggage.

I think the only possible formula would be a 3 or 4 seat retractable with a chute, with a diesel engine, and going for a lot less than an SR22.

Styling apart (always a matter of opinion) the TB20 panel is a good design for access, with the two end parts tilting. They didn’t do the middle part well though, and it is a pig to extract that module, especially as most installers run wires directly into it which need to be cut through before you can extract it… Once extracted it is great to work on. When I come to rework my centre stack one day, it will have to be done in-situ.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Interesting how views of a cockpit can differ!

I agree that the TB20 cockpit is the best I’ve ever been in.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Peter wrote:

I recall reading, maybe 10-15 years ago, that the French DGAC, in an attempt to revive what they described as a collapsing GA aircraft scene in France, and after doing a huge survey of French GA flying patterns they were going to sponsor the development of a 3-seat aircraft.

As with cars and SUVs, I think people buy four or more seats for the occasional need, regardless of their typical utilization. OTOH some Marchetti SF260s, Austers and Cubs came in a three seat configuration. It ought to liven things up socially, maybe that was their intent. Vive la différence…

Renault R4 car wheel

Last Edited by Silvaire at 02 Nov 15:00

redRover wrote:

So, would moving to something like a cleaned up SF-260 (2 seats, good canopy, long range at high speeds for a SEP because of the smaller fuselage cross section) give you a new enough market, or not?

Mooney tried that with the M10J. I would have thought it was a nice enough design and did almost exactly that: 3 seats, 170kts and a proven Diesel. Interest was Z E R O. Not only meagre, ZERO. While the M10 was developed, most platforms totally ignored it, the papers were enthusiastic but as we all know the papers are almost dead as opinion makers today, look at many others they jubilated about but which did not sell at all.

And if the Cirrus paradigm shows one thing, it is that to capture the heart and wallet of potential buyers, neither performance nor “new” technology matter. You can theoretically sell a bog standard airplane as long as you make it look attractive and have a great marketing team and a vision behind it.

The only thing Cirrus did which was ground breaking was the shute. It was not the fastest, not the most economical, in all frankness it was not the BEST in anything, yet it won over much more capable designs like the Columbia, all for the shute and marketing.

The SF50 is the best example for that. It sells like warm bread. And I have to admit, I am attracted to it (which I never was with the SR series) for the IDEA of what it is, an easy to fly jet for the average IFR-PPL with pressurized cabin, in short, it will do what my current plane does but much faster and much more comfortable.

Is it groundbreaking? In a manner of speaking it is, as there has not been a single engine jet which targets this kind of population. But you can fly faster and even more comfortable with a TBM and, not sure, cheaper too. Does that matter? Apparently not, people buy them.

Looking at the last few years of development, I reckon certified aviation has been painted into a corner. Practically ALL new airplanes which were supposed to come out in the last few years and hyped about failed, the SF50 and the DA50/62 being the only ones to actually see production. And all of these are out of reach of the average guy who bought their Pipers and Cessnas and TB’s in the 1950-1980’s. Prices of new airplanes are beyond the pale, simply totally ridiculously overpriced due to monopolies, due to overzealous certification criteria and a non-existant market.

To change that, you would need a billionaire who is willing to loose most of his money on certifying a new kind of “Model T” airplane which appeals to both pilots as well as the wifes and / or other financial decision makers, which is priced so it blows the competition totally out of the water and can be flown worldwide.

That makes a certified plane with
- a shute
- 4 really usable seats (that means 400 kg payload with full fuel)
- comfortable cabin
- ramp appeal
- standard good IFR avionics with current day technology, digital AP as well as FIKI
- 21st century engine technology with ON/OFF and a Fadec Throttle, undestroyable and burning 5 GPH at max speed.
For below <$100k

Can’t be done in the current environment as to get it that low down in price, you’d have to mass produce them analoge to cars, that is 10k per year as a low estimate.

But I think it would most probably work, if someone would furnish the enormeous capital to develop something like that. The only ones really capable are the Chinese due to low labour cost. Well, they own all of the GA industry already, so who knows. Maybe if Apple calls it the i-plane?

Last Edited by Mooney_Driver at 02 Nov 15:27
LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

Peter wrote:

I think the only possible formula would be a 3 or 4 seat retractable with a chute, with a diesel engine, and going for a lot less than an SR22.

That was the Mooney M10J….until it was cancelled…

YPJT, United Arab Emirates
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top