Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

TB21/20 with a gear-up landing history

Thank you everyone for the valuable inputs.

United States

Peter wrote:

I think a turbo is not a part of the engine but, like the exhaust, is a part of the airframe. So the airframe manufacturer is not restricted by the TCDS as to which turbo they use. This is quite an interesting topic

Lycoming even lists the P/N of the turbo charger of their page on the TIO-540-AB1AD engine, suggesting a specific engine model is tied to a specific turbo charger. Also, that page seems to say that the only user of that specific model is the Socata TB-21-TC. I’m quite interested in the answer to that discrepancy puzzle, too :)

It would seem a bit wasteful for Lycoming to develop a specific engine model just for the TB21, with a specific turbo charger, and then for Socata to slap a different turbo charger on it :\

Last Edited by lionel at 04 Oct 10:56
ELLX

johnh wrote:

Not my experience in the SR20! Though maybe that’s precisely why it is NOT a serious touring aircraft (imo).

SR20 is very under powered for takeoffs/climbs even when compared to load of 160hp/180hp but it’s an economical cruiser with all gadgets (but hey, just like new DA40s it’s for schools and hooking people on SR22s/DA42s upgrades), the NA SR22 does just fine up to FL140, one may go for the turbo if they wish FL240

That’s the theory, in practice, I come across load of turbos in UK, pity all of them fly bellow 3kft all the time except for LeTouquet crossings when they may get to 6kft to get a descent glide range…

Even for use in Alps, there are far more limiting factors than just engine MAP, high elevation airports* in Europe are VFR only, don’t have good landing distances with rough surfaces and huge slope, plus the required extra signoff for mountain bush flying, the turbo may allow quick climbs but one has to remember Jodels D140 and Maules are the kings out there this is nowhere like the flat long pavement runways airports in CO/AZ with ILS on both ends where the turbo on IFR touring SEP shines vs same SEP with NA engine !

The ones IFR deep inside the valleys tend to be for local guys only…

Last Edited by Ibra at 04 Oct 10:27
Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

The TB20 can cross mountains perfectly well – see the last trip for example.

The issue is weather. Warm front wx tends to have tops of FL200-250 and a FL250 aircraft is essential then, otherwise your de-ice will be working overtime enroute and that is a bad way to fly. And cold fronts can go a lot higher, although generally one can work between the buildups visually. This is where the PA46 wins (at a substantial engine/cylinder cost) as well as the bigger stuff like a TBM.

Remember FL250 in unpressurised means wearing masks, in general. Cannulas get very marginal. I’ve been to FL210 and one had to breathe very deliberately.

The SR20 is far less capable than a TB20.

Getting turbo owners to post their top overhaul periods is a constant challenge But more practically, as the OP is looking for a post-2000 aircraft, there are very few TB21 GT for sale. They just don’t come up much. Look here, S/N 2000 onwards, and you get the idea. Part of the reason is that Socata were quoting 6 month lead times on the TB21 (in early 2002 when I was looking).

Like Bosco said, nothing a seller says about the condition or history can be relied on. You have to do your own prebuy, and checking the paperwork takes almost as long as checking the aircraft.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

johnh wrote:

Not my experience in the SR20! Though maybe that’s precisely why it is NOT a serious touring aircraft (imo).

I agree. It is perfectly ok flying the great plains or northern continental Europe but it is severely underpowered for flights in alpine terrain.

182’s, Mooneys and even some Pipers can do better in terms of altitude than the small Cirrus can. My humble 180 hp M20C made 17000 ft in ISA+20 and MTOW in about 35 minutes and Peter keeps showing his TB20 reaching what in the US would be the Flight Levels. An SR20 won’t do that. It is of the same performance heritage as the Grumman AA5’s which are quite lovely planes but miserable climbers.

Maybe because it was never intended as a “keeps” airplane but as an entry level plane and introduction to Cirrus and as a basic trainer. One Cirrus guy once told me that lots of people walked into their shops with the intent to buy a “cheap” SR 20 but ended up walking out with a SR22 or even SR22T. So the main reason Cirrus hangs on to the SR20 is exactly that: It offers interested parties a cheaper entry level which gets people hooked so they can sell SR22’s.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

most serious touring aircraft would clear the tops of mountains with load of margins

Not my experience in the SR20! Though maybe that’s precisely why it is NOT a serious touring aircraft (imo). The SR22 is OK, the SR71 even better, though maybe harder to insure.

Seriously, I’ve crossed the Sierra Nevada fine in a non-turbo 182S at 13500, but just barely made it to 13500 in the SR20 (100 ft/min at the top). I’m so used to flying with a turbo that I do start to wonder what’s going wrong after 5000 feet in a non-turbo! For CA I think it’s pretty much essential for serious touring. For Europe where I am now, probably more trouble than it’s worth unless your primary mission is Zurich – Milan.

LFMD, France

johnh wrote:

The arguments for/against a turbo depend heavily on where you are. Where I lived (SF Bay Area) it’s extremely useful since just about any serious journey involves crossing mountains, If you’re in Colorado, it’s just essential. On the east coast… less so

I agree but it’s mostly takeoffs/departures? the mountain crossing itself should not rely on turbo extra power being available (maybe with afterburners?), most serious touring aircraft would clear the tops of mountains with load of margins way before reaching the peaks with/without turbo, just careful planning…

I figure out that turbo is for usual summer trips in UK & France it’s as useful as sun creams or DVD rewinders (it’s tiny useful to out climbing with some ice/dirt, as NA aircraft, even +300hp FIKI runs out of steam in FL80-FL120 bands)

I have not checked how much it’s useful for descents/landings

Last Edited by Ibra at 04 Oct 09:33
Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

Antonio wrote:

Insurability- this eliminates turbines and pressurized aircraft…no PA46, even before you consider other reasons

I am not sure how extreme the situation is in the US these days, but I also hear a lot of potential Mooney buyers can not get insurance because it is “complex”. This would also mean that the TB20 may be hard to insure, depending on the amount of hours the OP has.

Insurance in the US is a very major problem these days and one of the reasons, why Cirrus and other fixed gear airplanes do better than retracables on the market. It appears that requirements to get insured with a “complex” airplane get more and more crazy (I’ve heard the figure of 500 hrs tt up to 1000 hrs tt mentioned, which in Europe would mean maybe 5% of the GA population can get insured on one of those as owner/pilot) and the signal appears to be that the insurance market wants to get rid of the GA segment or at least is not at all interested in insuring complex aircraft (with retracable gear and variable prop) unless we are talking commercial pilots or flight schools. Insurances there appear to still be reasonably accessible for non-complex airplanes, to which Cirrus apparently is counted due to the fixed gear.

The other problem appears to be old age, we have had several people who have been Mooney pilots for decades having to sell up because once they reached a certain age, the insurers would no longer insure them on a complex. Some went back to a PA28, most gave up flying with VERY hard feelings against insurances they have paid their whole career and who now boot them out when they finally have time to fly.

Out of that perspective, the OP might well have to look there or at the very least make sure he can actually get insurance for a complex. Otherwise the whole story is mute. One agent which a lot of Mooney pilots work with and who at times has been able to sort some people out who were refused elsewhere was Parker Woodruff who runs an independent insurance agency and is an ATP and CFI himself.

Last Edited by Mooney_Driver at 04 Oct 09:34
LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

turbo will be more maintenance intensive

The arguments for/against a turbo depend heavily on where you are. Where I lived (SF Bay Area) it’s extremely useful since just about any serious journey involves crossing mountains, If you’re in Colorado, it’s just essential. On the east coast… less so.

In 20 years I have had one expensive incident involving the turbo, which required a turbo overhaul – iirc around $4K. Not too bad. The throttle/turbo linkage on the TR182 is a nightmare but that’s very type specific. Operating the turbo on the TR182 requires care. More recent turbo 182s (non-retract) are MUCH easier from that pov – just set the MP and forget.

LFMD, France

Well given the budget and the newness of the PPL, the three key elements to a successful outcome for this ownership adventure are, and taking what I believe are the important ones from the forum above:

  1. Insurability- this eliminates turbines and pressurized aircraft…no PA46, even before you consider other reasons
  2. Maintainability – I am no expert on the US, but my impression is Cirri, Cessna, Mooney and Piper will do better in the US than any TB. All it takes are a couple of bad experiences away from home to really put you off about travelling. Most of the times the C’s, M and P aircraft can get you on the way quickly with any of the local shops you may find yourself stranded at in the US. I am not sure it will be the case on a TB. If it were Europe , then I would say TB good too. If it were about local flying rather than long-distance trips then I would say Peter’s view on your local mechanic not being brain-lazy is more relevant.
  3. Family involvement- I can only second @Mooneydriver ‘s words above: it will be very difficult for it to work long-term unless the family are at least partially onboard (literally too). This may discard the M aircraft depending on family size: not so good for four POB’s. In my case the family outgrowing the aircraft drove an aircraft change.

Yes turbo will be more maintenance intensive and budgeting maybe not 100% but at least 70% above NA for engine reserve would be wise. In this case I would be more concerned about reliability and groundtime, which are also impacted and do need a more involved pilot. If the wish is for long-term ownership (which I personally recommend, ownership is a steep learning curve and it is frequently not nice to start it all over), then I would say the higher capabilities of turbo will not be regretted.

Also, as a good ownership tool, consider using SavvyAviation’s or equivalent pre-buy and maintenance-assistance services.

Thinking again, there may be a fourth key element: being a mindful person willing to humbly but critically and inquisitively learn from the experience of others (as your posting on this forum shows) as well as your own will keep you enjoying flying safely for many years to come.

Last Edited by Antonio at 04 Oct 08:57
Antonio
LESB, Spain
24 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top