Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

TB9 and TB10 performance comparison

I have been contacted by a pilot who has an opportunity to fly both of these. He says the POH figures are similar, which I find astonishing. The TB10 has a lot more excess power than the TB9 which I believe is similar to a PA28-140.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

The TB9 is more like a PA28-161, both in terms of empty weight / MTOW and in terms of horespower. It’s 10-15 knots slower though. A real “flying flat iron”.

Frankfurt (EDFZ, EDFE), Germany

I haven’t compared the TB9 and TB10 but it is interesting to compare the Cessna 172R with the 172S. The aircraft are essentially identical with the same engine (Lyc. IO-360-L2A). The 172S has MTOM 1157 kg and 180 hp. The 172R has MTOM 1111 kg and engine derated to 160 hp.

The performance figures at the respective MTOM — both takeoff, climb and cruise — are very similar.

Last Edited by Airborne_Again at 29 Apr 19:47
ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

On the basis of one flight in a TB9 but about 100 hrs in a TB10 I have to say that even decades later I remember the takeoff performance of the TB9 was shall we say, less than sparkling.

Darley Moor, Gamston (UK)

Thank you Peter, indeed.
I was the one who asked Peter this question.
The thing is that there’s a very nice TB9, very fresh too, for sale. I’ve flown TB 20 and 21 so this gives me an idea about ergonomic, look and overall feeling in TBs (I’m not talking performance at all yet).
There’s also a very nice and similar SMOH and so on TB 10 but double price. Still not a fortune but… if they don’t differ to much then I’d rather “liquefy” additional money through fuel tanks.

Not having experience in 9/10 made a quick research. Put POH data together and added PA 28 181 Archer III, that I know very well in almost all flying conditions just for reference and got surprised.
Please see attached picture.

If TB POHs data is almost real life correct, as can be read/heard then it looks like in some cases TB9 performs same or even better!!!
Is it due a lower weight? Is data wrong? Or I’m mistaken?

Should there be any of you with experience in both I’d do appreciate your input.
I’ll fly TB 9 in next few days but not sure about TB 10 hence it would be great to learn something in advance from your experience.

To be honest both of them are “demons of take off, climb and speed” but I just need a magic carpet that will take me to IFR aircrafts I rent so will fly for 3-4 hours instead of 10-12 hours driving plus will use it to fly locally just for fun e.g. romantic, sunset coffee in Rone, Bornholm ;)

BTW
Red figures – I’m not sure about
Take off, climb and speed data – I tried to do this part as good as possible
Range, endurance, fuel consumption – could do it better if spent more time but this is not really vital.

EPXX

Hello Kristof,

I’ve flown both types: a TB9 G1 mostly during my PPL training and a TB10 GT for touring afterwards.

On top of engine hp, the key difference is the constant speed propeller on the TB10. At MTOW, climb performance is similar between both aircraft. But in cruise at say 3000ft, you have to pull back the throttle on the TB9 to avoid overspeed. I don’t know if there are different types of propellers for the TB9 (low / high pitch) but, with ours, the TAS in cruise never exceeded 100kt, maybe 105 on good days. The TB10 does 115.

In terms of payload, both aircraft are similar. You can’t take off with 4 POB and full fuel. With 4 POB, I carry max 120l which gives 3hours endurance without reserves.

The performance data will also differ if you look at a G1 or a GT. The GTs empty weight is higher. While it does not make much difference on a 20 or 21, it really impacts mission capability on a 9 or 10.

Maybe you’d like to post the links to the ads in the forum for us to see.

Regards

LFNR

Hi Alboule
Thank you for your input. It’s pretty much what I’ve found so far so thx for confirmation.
Talking TB 9 prop – yes – I found they may differ from 54"(climb prop) all the way through 56, 58 up to 61"(cruise).
Props are supposed to be “repitchable”, at least N-guys do this, don’t know about this side of the lake.
OK – so far I’m satisfied with TB 9 and more fuel to be burned ;)

What about take-off runway roll, initial climb? Have you found them similar or is there any significant difference – >TB10 due power/const. speed advantage?
I’ll be mostly using controlled – long runways airports but there are few shorter ones I’d like to visit from time to time as well.
How do you think 450-500m paved runway (no wind) sea level – 3000’ will be enough? Just runway roll no obstacles. I know what POH says :) What’s real life?

I’m thinking e.g. Jasna/Hopok, Slovakia 520m or Klaipeda, Lithuania 500m – both have no obstacles far away from thresholds however on both of them it was a matter of 30-40 meters to the end of RWY with PA 28 181 180hp – Klaipeda 1 pers, full fuel, 35kg bags in trunk plus a snowboard, Jasna 2 pers, 3/4 fuel, 30kg bags in trunk, 15kg on aft seat. So in both cases there was still a margin to MTOW but was struggling even having stronger engine hence my question.
Thank you in advance.

EPXX

Re Kristof

I didn’t feel any significant difference between the TB9 and the TB10 for take-off roll and climb, but I’ve never used them on limitative runways. My home base has a 1200m runway.
Looking at our TB10 POH, my figures significantly differ from yours:
SL ISA MTOW: take-off roll 325m, 50ft 505m.
AT 4000ft 15°C: 470 / 750m

In a general manner, TBs are quite “heavy” aircraft. The 9 and 10, with the same airframe as a 20 and a fixed gear, are a bit “underpowered” compared to, e.g. a C172.
As long as the runway is long, no problem. But I would not fly the TB9 or the TB10 to 500m runways, let alone in altitude. My personal minimum is 700m.
If the short airfield capibility is a mandatory requirement, I would drop the TB9 and 10.
But for a romantic sightseeing tour and medium-haul flights, it’s a great plane: wide, comfortable cabin, very smooth and stable aircraft.

Last Edited by Alboule at 30 Apr 13:56
LFNR

Alboule
325m vs 405m isn’t “slightly” :)
The only POH for TB 10 I found was in German, AC built in 1994, SN 1667 – please see below an example page. (POH itself dated 30.09.1989)
Looks like I need to find one more POH or preferably the one for the certain plane.
700m min makes sense.

I’m aware about limitations of TB 9/10 that’s why I’m trying to find is there anything cruicial? Is there realy SOMETHING that should rather draw my attention to TB 10.
95-100kts doesn’t bother me, 700m RWY also is OK ( anyway if buy one will do tests with different weights on marked runway what it rally takes to lift off).

Flying low and slow is some sort of price I have to pay if later on same day I want to jump on another one and fly hig and fast – my love likes “sight seeing” :) “IFR is long and boring” :) moreover TBs are beating others for better handling of turbulences :)

Is there anything else would you think about, that I rather should go for TB 10?

EPXX

I wouldn’t waste so much time pondering over POHs and what people say.

Just fly one of these for yourself and then see. I am reasonably confident that after that, you will have discarded the TB.

About “coping” with turbulence: in theory, airplanes should be different due to different wing loadings. In practice, these standard light SEPs are all more or less the same. When it’s calm, they are all fine, when it’s bumpy, they are all rather bad.

Frankfurt (EDFZ, EDFE), Germany
19 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top