Why is my mechanic so against a turbo?

mandm

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Feb 7, 2020
Messages
2,459
Location
Chicago
Display Name

Display name:
Michael
I’m looking at some aircraft and I’m interested in this one that has turbo and I sent the listing to my mechanic and he’s having a heart attack about the airframe hours (5000) and the fact that it has a turbo. The higher altitudes and speed are very appealing to me. Got any tips suggestions feedback on this?
 
Check the overhaul price of a turbocharged engine. If the price doesn't scare you, then Go-For-It. A friend had a turbocharged Piper Saratoga with a TIO-540-S1AD and the factory was not going to overhaul it but changed their mind and charged $115,000.00. Then Lycoming said they will never do it that cheap again.

 
The concern your mechanic has might be more related to the specific aircraft type than it is with turbos in general. But as has already been mentioned, there is the potential for added maintenance expense.

There may be minimal performance return on having a turbo depending on the aircraft, where you live, and the kind of flying you're doing.
 
Midwest based. Less need for a turbo and more maintenance.
 
Because you'll be wanting a new mechanic to go along with that new turbo whip.
 
Midwest based. Less need for a turbo and more maintenance.
But do you plan on flying in the west?

Do you like the idea of climbing higher to take advantage of a nice tailwind? And higher is faster due to TAS gain.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_2173.JPG
    IMG_2173.JPG
    2.5 MB · Views: 39
Got any tips suggestions feedback on this?
As to the turbo side, I can understand from a mx point. I tended to stay away from turbos and retracts for various reasons, but I had the flexibility to do so. However, if a 5000TT airframe is giving him heartburn, then there is probably more to the story. I've worked on 30K+ TT airframes and never blinked an eye. Perhaps sit down with him and ask him the real reasons why? I would have welcomed to the opportunity to explain my reasons why to an owner.
 
Turbos are not free. If you need the performance then you should get the turbo airplane. If you don’t fly in a manner that will take advantage of the turbo you would be dumb to spend the money.

Personally I would never buy a plane that’s turbocharged. Not because they are inherently bad but because I do not need or want the capability they add. It would be nothing but added costs for me.
 
My mechanic hates a turbo Mooney.
Not because of the maintenance required, but because of the difficulty.

Mooney packed an entire airplane into a small, tidy package.
Add a turbo, and even an oil change becomes a headache working among all the bits & pieces with no room for fingers in between.
 
But do you plan on flying in the west?

Do you like the idea of climbing higher to take advantage of a nice tailwind? And higher is faster due to TAS gain.
How has your dispatch been with the turbo? Relatively new to a bravo here.
 
My mechanic hates a turbo Mooney.
Not because of the maintenance required, but because of the difficulty.

Mooney packed an entire airplane into a small, tidy package.
Add a turbo, and even an oil change becomes a headache working among all the bits & pieces with no room for fingers in between.
I hate working on Mooneys. Period. They are awesome to fly but they are ten pounds of **** in a five pound sack. The only airplane I dislike more is the duke. Those turbo 541 engines are a P.I.T.A
 
The airplane type is offered in both NA and turbo versions, my mechanic is fine with a NA version but I kind of want the altitude to fly in the flight levels solely for purpose of taking advantage of tailwinds, also the added speed and climb performance when going on xc flights.

A 3-4 hour flight is a big difference compared to a 5-6 hour flight especially if you want to go somewhere for a long weekend. Longer journeys take me longer to recover and to get to my holiday enjoyment status mode.

I almost want to create another which airplane to buy thread o_O want something faster than the Arrow, but like the other m says, the Arrow works, why risk a new airplane for marginal gains in speed, BUT we need to get there faster.
 
Are turbo normalized setups as bad maintenance wise a turbo's?
 
A 3-4 hour flight is a big difference compared to a 5-6 hour flight
Look at the manufacturer’s numbers for climb and descent before you assume the trip will be 25-30% shorter. Last one I did the math on was 3 minutes faster at FL180 than 4000 ft from Minneapolis to Oklahoma City.
 
The airplane type is offered in both NA and turbo versions, my mechanic is fine with a NA version but I kind of want the altitude to fly in the flight levels solely for purpose of taking advantage of tailwinds, also the added speed and climb performance when going on xc flights.

A 3-4 hour flight is a big difference compared to a 5-6 hour flight especially if you want to go somewhere for a long weekend. Longer journeys take me longer to recover and to get to my holiday enjoyment status mode.

I almost want to create another which airplane to buy thread o_O want something faster than the Arrow, but like the other m says, the Arrow works, why risk a new airplane for marginal gains in speed, BUT we need to get there faster.
@mandm, This is why they created "Fractional Aircraft Ownership". I believe you'll be very surprised by the cost and the opportunities to do your own flying. Sometimes things work out and you may find yourself hiring on as an eligible pilot.
 
The most important parameter with a turbo is fuel flow.....adequate fuel flow and the engine will perform and run cool in extended climbs. If there isn't enough....the CHTs will be screaming hot and you'll be burning exhaust valves.
 
Are turbo normalized setups as bad maintenance wise a turbo's?
What most folks call turbocharged is really turbo normalized. But there are turbo/super charged engines out there.

Ham fisted pilots will do more damage to a turbo engine than normal operations. I have seen pilots new to turbos go through cylinders before they learn how to operate the throttle(s) properly.
 
A turbo adds some complications and potential costs. OTOH being able to fly higher let’s you take advantage of some nice tail winds, can get you over weather and offers higher TAS. If fuel controller is set up properly, there’s nothing difficult to operating a turbo.
I’ve been operating two turbos for over 7 years now. Very glad to have them. YRMV
 
To take advantage of the turbo capabilities you need O2 tanks, pressurized magnetos; don’t know if they are a significant maintenance expense. I thought the O2 tanks have to be tested every 5-10 years?
 
Look at the manufacturer’s numbers for climb and descent before you assume the trip will be 25-30% shorter. Last one I did the math on was 3 minutes faster at FL180 than 4000 ft from Minneapolis to Oklahoma City.
People often forget the difference of 130ktas to a 160ktas is a matter of a few minutes. A piston single vs another piston single will hardly ever gain an hour, much less a couple. I agree.
 
You’d have to do a lot of serious cross
Country trips to justify a turbo. What type
Of plane are you looking at? Maybe there is a different model that provides the same capability as the turbo model you are looking at. For example a 550 powered Mooney probably provides similar or better performance than a turbo 231. In my opinion if you are doing enough cross country work to justify a turbo you’d probably be best served by something pressurized. A turbo certainly makes sense though if you routinely fly in the Rockies.
 
In addition to high altitude flying benefits, there is the ‘lessening of anxiety’ when departing hi DA airports.
 
Ham fisted pilots will do more damage to a turbo engine than normal operations. I have seen pilots new to turbos go through cylinders before they learn how to operate the throttle(s) properly.
Can you expand on this a bit?
 
Can you expand on this a bit?
You can get too much boost if the engine isn't handled properly, especially in manual wastegate systems, where the wastegate is linked to the throttle. That high induction pressure can lead to detonation, which trashes cylinders. It shatters rings, cracks pistons and heads.

Exhaust systems suffer in turboed airplanes, and exhaust systems are not cheap. The back pressure caused by the turbo raises the exhaust system temperatures. A few years ago an AD came out on the newer Cessna T206H airplanes; the exhaust systems needed an inspection to see if the pipes were sagging and distorting. The pipes were getting so hot that the mounting flanges at the cylinder heads were softening and bending and leaking. I found that on the two front cylinders of one of those airplanes. The new pipes weren't cheap, I tell you. Aircraft exhaust systems are often operating red-hot, and turboed systems even more so.
 
I think you should buy it. It’s not my money. All I know is that when I was looking my mechanic didn’t want me to get a turbo either. I had a friend who had a turbo cracked two cylinders on the same flight. But he still thought he wanted to fly higher. He couldn’t get anybody to partner with him because of the extra maintenance. He ended up selling it because of a looming overhaul. I know that is anecdotal. Having turbos kind of like four-wheel-drive on a pick up. Unless you really need it it’s just an extra expense.
 
Last edited:
I’m looking at some aircraft and I’m interested in this one that has turbo and I sent the listing to my mechanic and he’s having a heart attack about the airframe hours (5000) and the fact that it has a turbo. The higher altitudes and speed are very appealing to me. Got any tips suggestions feedback on this?

About every mechanic I have ever spoken to will recommend against a turbocharged engine unless you live in the mountain west and really need a turbo charged airplane.




Here is a link to an articles discussing some of the issues.



 
I’m looking at some aircraft and I’m interested in this one that has turbo and I sent the listing to my mechanic and he’s having a heart attack about the airframe hours (5000) and the fact that it has a turbo. The higher altitudes and speed are very appealing to me. Got any tips suggestions feedback on this?


About every mechanic I have ever spoken to will recommend against a turbocharged engine unless you live in the mountain west and really need a turbo charged airplane.


Here is a link to an article from aviation safety that discusses some of the issues.


My mechanic hates a turbo Mooney.
Not because of the maintenance required, but because of the difficulty.

Mooney packed an entire airplane into a small, tidy package.
Add a turbo, and even an oil change becomes a headache working among all the bits & pieces with no room for fingers in between.
The 252 is on the top of my list of turbocharged aircraft I would own.
 
A turbo adds some complications and potential costs. OTOH being able to fly higher let’s you take advantage of some nice tail winds, can get you over weather and offers higher TAS. If fuel controller is set up properly, there’s nothing difficult to operating a turbo.
I’ve been operating two turbos for over 7 years now. Very glad to have them. YRMV
Or some really nice headwinds.
 
Currently a Mooney M-22 on barnstormers if you really want a maintenance pig. Pressurized turbo. No need for oxygen. And plenty of quirks. Rare with 36 built, 14 on the FAA registry
 
Last edited:
Check the overhaul price of a turbocharged engine. If the price doesn't scare you, then Go-For-It. A friend had a turbocharged Piper Saratoga with a TIO-540-S1AD and the factory was not going to overhaul it but changed their mind and charged $115,000.00. Then Lycoming said they will never do it that cheap again.

At first, I didn't believe this. I paid 88,000 for this engine rebuilt in November 2021, which is now going for 114,000.
WTH is going on!!??
 
Had the same plane as a turbo and as a NA (A36TC vs. A36).
- Engine is far more reasonable to overhaul on the NA
- Maintenance on anything behind the engine is much easier without all the tubing
- Better mpg for the NA
- The difference in speeds was not transformational. You can burm more fuel to fly faster at altitude, but there is no magic to it

We didn't have many turbo specific maintenance issues. Took a few different mechanics to get the fuel flow just right on that narrow ledge between hot CHTs and losing power from being overly rich.

One of the partners in the turbo plane took it out west to AZ and CA every summer. For those trips, the turbo was a very helpful tool.
 
You can get too much boost if the engine isn't handled properly, especially in manual wastegate systems,
OK, that answers my question - thanks.

This seems to be a case where a well-executed closed-loop engine management system would pay real dividends in both efficiency and safety. Airplanes are a more complex environment than ground vehicles, but the same basic principles apply, and ground vehicle engines have had this for decades.
 
This seems to be a case where a well-executed closed-loop engine management system would pay real dividends in both efficiency and safety. Airplanes are a more complex environment than ground vehicles, but the same basic principles apply, and ground vehicle engines have had this for decades.
Some turbo systems are automated. Fully-mechanical, though, since electric stuff tends to fail too often. This system has been around a long time. Go here and read about it:
https://www.extraaircraft.com/docs/tech-manuals/MM400/81r1.pdf

A diagram of the system:

1708886224602.png

Some systems don't have the sloped controller, but the rest is there and watches that overboosting doesn't happen. However, since the system uses a metered oil pressure "leak" to control the wastegate, taking off with the oil still cold, and just jamming the throttle all the way forward, can result in overboost before the wastegate can open to limit the boost. One still has to think, just like with the rest of aviation. The world of airplanes is not for non-thinkers.

Cars have become so automated that one doesn't need to know anything (the thinking goes), and that results in people trusting the machine to the point that it kills them. Barrelling along the freeway on the ice, for instance, thinking that the ABS and stability augmentation and all-wheel-drive makes it safe. It's stupid, not safe. One still has to think about the machine's limitations.

More on turbo systems:

https://www.aviationpros.com/home/a...-turbocharging-part-ii-valves-and-controllers
 
Last edited:
Back
Top