After being in a group for a short stint, I am looking again to potentially buy an aircraft and there are currently three fairly high hour TB20s from 1990s for sale in the UK. I have read lots of good things about these aircraft particularly that they handle well, many come with TKS and pretty fast. Although the accident rate is higher than trainers, the vast majority of the fatal accidents with them seem to be VFR into IMC or spatial disorientation kind of accidents which I guess is mostly an indication of the kind of pilot that would buy these aircraft rather than a negative indictment of the aircraft itself. One thing I did notice though is quite a few gear collapse incidents and several accidents where the door opened midflight (and it’s impossible to close it because of how it opens the pilot would have to undo the seat belt to close the door).
There seem to be three for sale currently in the UK all with asking prices of £160-170k. Engine times 1100-1800 hours. Are there any specific pitfalls I should be aware of if I were to consider buying one of these? I am aware that they have the single drive dual magnetos which don’t seem very well supported these days (no longer being made apparently). Is this likely to be an issue when the time comes for an overhaul or have some replacements been found?
Anything specific I should look out for with these aircraft? Is it easy to find a good shop to maintain them (and do a prebuy)? Are parts easy to come by if needed? For those of you who own them have you had a lot of downtime?
My quick calculation seems to suggest that basing the aircraft near London (I looked at Biggin), with hangarage (DIFFICULT to come by, but the costs are assuming I somehow by some miracle manage it – most likely would have to tie down outside for awhile) the likely annual cost for 60 hours per year would be around £38k (this factors in the higher contributions to the engine fund due to high hour engine, I used the highest available on the market to be conservative). If I assume a new engine it comes to £27k. Does this sound about right? I assumed £8k for the annual, £8k for hangar and £4k for insurance (as I only have 130 hours it’s pretty steep for me to insure £170k hull value). So that’s about £430 per hour + engine fund (~£200).
The asking prices seem fairly high for 30 year old aircraft with high hour engines. Does it seem reasonable to y’all? None of them are GT, but two of them have TKS though and one comes with GTN750 and GI275s which are nice to have (but this is also the one with the 1700+ hour engine).
My PPL instructor thinks I should buy something simpler like a 172 or a PA28. But from what I can tell the fixed costs are not hugely different regardless of what you buy and my sums for 172 came to £20k (so £6k per year difference mainly made up of insurance being cheaper and I assumed annual would come to £4k for 172 instead of £8k). Outside of that the difference seems minor. And for longer flights the cost per nautical mile seems actually higher for a 172. Am I just not factoring something in?
I also considered a DA40. I have been renting one for awhile and it’s such a nice aircraft to fly. But finding one in the UK for ~150k or so is nigh impossible. Several for sale around Europe (Lycoming engined but that’s great) but due to Brexit it’d be 20% extra for VAT plus can’t fly an EASA reg with a CAA license so looking at change of reg (many ££££s) or acquiring an EASA license.
I kinda hate the term in a GA context, but it needs to be asked: what’s your mission profile? 100 quid burger runs and local sightseeing or cross Europe travel? Horses for courses….
172driver wrote:
I kinda hate the term in a GA context, but it needs to be asked: what’s your mission profile? 100 quid burger runs and local sightseeing or cross Europe travel? Horses for courses….
Most of the time “£100” burgers and sightseeing, with an occasional longer trip.
In this case your instructor might have a point with his idea of a C172 (or 182, the Swiss Army Knife of GA). High wing is definitely better for sightseeing!
PS to add: especially in the UK with its abundance of grass strips a fixed gear plane may well be preferable.
For comfort, TB20 will better (higher wing loading), and yes, fixed cost is not going to be much different.
DA40 – schools love those, so they are expensive to buy.
Unless you are planning to use the plane primarily for traveling purposes, with not much local flying, something less complex would be better and more enjoyable to own IMO. What you’re not factoring in is the brain damage of fixing and maintaining things you don’t need to own – complex planes have a lot of ‘stuff’. Also its not terribly fun to fly a complex going-places plane on a short distance trip – too much procedure in too short a time. What you’ll find if you look around is that people with complex planes don’t do many "£100” burger runs, and often wish they had a second plane to do them.
Grumman AA-5s are simple, good performers and fun to fly. They aren’t great at high altitude or on very short fields, but it doesn’t sound like you need that and they are more enjoyable for the kind of flying you plan than most four seat options. I have a friend who has a Lycoming equipped DA40 and its fine too, very efficient, but I find it uncomfortable and its handling is like a sailplane. He loves it anyway. Robins are attractive to me but with fabric wings you’d need to have a hangar identified, and equipping one for IFR is apparently a problem given no FAA type-cert, if IFR is a consideration.
Cherokees and 172s are very popular for a reason, but they are a bit boring.
Yeah so I have IMC rating at the moment but looking to get the full IFR. So far I’ve mostly done shorter trips but my wife is quite keen to go somewhere and stay over. We haven’t really done that much partly because renting for multiple days can be tricky (I can only do weekends…). But yeah I guess in the future I’ll probably do more trips of say 1.5-2 hours. Would love to do some airway flying but currently not a requirement.
Silvaire wrote:
Also its not terribly fun to fly a complex going-places plane on a short distance trip – too much procedure in too short a time. What you’ll find if you look around is that people with complex planes don’t do many "£100” burger runs, and often wish they had a second plane to do them.
That’s an interesting point I haven’t thought of that. I’d definitely like to be able to go and fly into a grass strip have lunch and head back.
Silvaire wrote:
Grumman AA-5s are simple, good performers and fun to fly. They aren’t great at high altitude or on very short fields, but it doesn’t sound like you need that and they are more enjoyable for the kind of flying you plan than most four seat options. I have a friend who has a Lycoming equipped DA40 and its fine too, very efficient, but I find it uncomfortable and its handling is like a sailplane. He loves it anyway. Robins are attractive to me but with fabric wings you’d need to have a hangar identified, and equipping one for IFR is apparently a problem given no FAA type-cert, if IFR is a consideration.
Lots of Robins for sale currently. I guess because the factory seems to be going bust soon. But they seem very clean and fairly cheap airplanes.
I have a TB20, which I acquired at the beginning of this year. Previously I had a TR182. They are both excellent “touring” aircraft. I miss the turbo, but otherwise I’d say they’re pretty much equivalent, though of course different. I’m still getting used to the TB20, with about 60 hours total in it. I had over 1000 hours in my 182.
My TB20 has state-of-the-art avionics (G500, GTN750/650) whereas my 182 was 20 years behind – GNS530W/430, steam gauges, Stec 30. Had I not lost it, I would probably have put in a dual GI275 and maybe a GFC500 also.
I haven’t owned the TB20 for long enough to comment on maintenance – I have my first annual next month. Both aircraft are easy to fly, once you get used to them. The 182 is notoriously heavy in pitch, but this is actually an advantage since it makes holding altitude dead easy. With the TB20, if you don’t pay close attention, you can easily end up with a 200 foot altitude deviation, at least at first.
Parthurnax wrote:
there are currently three fairly high hour TB20s from 1990s for sale in the UK
If its the ones on Planecheck, they all have relatively few airframe hours over a long time. All of them have original, never overhauled engines, which means that you have to factor an overhaul into the budget eventually, even though with good maintenance particularly the one with 1100 hrs may last for many more years. Also the others can last for 3-500 hours more, which is quite a lot for a new PPL.
Both the 1990 and the 1994 model have TKS de icing and decent avionics. It’s quite important to know that avionic upgrades are much more cost intensive than an engine overhaul, which opposed to upgrades are a fairly known quantity.
Prices reflect the value of well equipped TB20s today. Given what the others outside of the UK are priced at, I’d think there may be room for discussion but in general, those are the prices.
Given the choice between the 3 of them, I would consider one of the two with TKS de ice, as it is very difficult to upgrade. While they are almost similar in hours and equipment, the 1990 one has a slight “edge” as it has had a top overhaul recently as well as a newer autopilot with Flight Director. But the 1994 one has better avionics. If you have this kind of budget, I personally think unless some massive problems turn up in pre-buy inspections, those two are very decent airplanes.
Parthurnax wrote:
My PPL instructor thinks I should buy something simpler like a 172 or a PA28.
Groan… PPL instructors keep doing that. Why? Mostly because quite a few of them never graduated to owning an airplane. Given the fact that you are aiming for an IR, PA28’s or 172’s are bad choices. They are not anywhere the IFR platform any TB20, particularly with TCAS and good equipment will be. So therefore, I regard your instructors advice as typical but not something I’d listen to.
My take, and Peter here is the prime example, is that you better buy bigger and for keeps. Peter bought his TB20 as a fresh PPL and he definitly has proven that with a proper introduction it is perfectly managable by someone who already has an IMC and is looking for an IR. If you have the budget for a TB20, there is no real reason you should go for a PA28 or a C172, which will in good exemplars set you back a lot of money as well but are far from as versatile than a TB20 is. To me, the TB20 is the quintessential tourer: Comfortable, solid, well equipped, enormeous range and it can be operated from most grass runways quite safely. It also has a very decent payload.
As for shortfalls and watch outs, Peter here is the resident expert, with experience of many years of ownership of his excellent GT model.
Parthurnax wrote:
Yeah so I have IMC rating at the moment but looking to get the full IFR. So far I’ve mostly done shorter trips but my wife is quite keen to go somewhere and stay over. We haven’t really done that much partly because renting for multiple days can be tricky (I can only do weekends…). But yeah I guess in the future I’ll probably do more trips of say 1.5-2 hours. Would love to do some airway flying but currently not a requirement.
Again, this for me is by all means a good basis for a TB20 ownership. Why? You will outgrow 1.5 to 2 hour trips in an airplane which is comfortable, has a decent cabin size which your wife will also enjoy a lot more than any PA28 or C172. In a TB20 you can easily last for 3-4 hours, which in the aforementioned may well be a torture.
