NA or Turbo?

B

BPM

Pre-Flight
Joined
Sep 2, 2018
Messages
95
Location
DFW, Texas
Display Name
Display name:
BPM
I live in Dallas and, in addition to the weekend hamburger run, my family of four (2 young children) would like to travel to Colorado ski resorts a couple times per year in the winter, as well as a couple destinations in Wyoming and Idaho a couple times in the summer.

I’ve always just assumed that my family wouldn’t want to use oxygen, and therefore I should focus on NA airplanes, however, in sketching out flight plans today to KRXE it seems I’ll need to be in O2-required altitudes for part of the trip.

Given my missions, would I be best served with a turbo vs NA airplane?

Appreciate everyone’s thoughts.
 
Turbo for the Rockies. However there will be plenty of days that even a turbo won’t help.

Winter and skiing it’ll be when the jet stream makes a low level visit, or storm fronts.

In between nice performance and cold dry air.

Get at least some mountain training.
 
always wanting to learn...what is a NA airplane and how does that differ from a turbo (assumes that means tyrbo prop)?
 
rk911 said:
always wanting to learn...what is a NA airplane and how does that differ from a turbo (assumes that means tyrbo prop)?
Click to expand...

He's referring to piston engines in both cases. NA = naturally aspirated. Turbo = turbocharged, not turboprop (totally different engine tech since turboprop is a turbine, not a reciprocating piston engine)

But now that you bring it up, a pressurized turboprop would be a great solution to his problem!
 
I have a Rajay Turbo 182P and could not imagine flying the mountains without it. Pretty sweet in summer heat to be 5000' AGL over a lot of the peaks. I like the Rajay set-up with the manual waste gate, as it operates like a plain Jane O-470R until the "4th engine control" is twisted in to make boost. Climbing like you're near sea level at 16,000 MSL is amazing. To avoid icing in the winter, climbing is sometimes your best option.
 
So, with the cirrus, the factory turbo is supposedly slower than the NA below 10,000. I checked out in a 22T in March, and it was fun seeing 1,600 fpm up to 9000 feet at 125 knots. And it was cool to fly the turbo. But it does eat into useful load and I really don't need it on the East Coast. So the answer for me is, it depends.
 
Plus, keep in mind the added maintenance costs. Not just to maintain the turbo system, but you're asking the engine to produce a higher power output for a much longer duration. Shorter engine life results.
 
It depends on the plane, your checking account, and patience. We have a very similar situation as you, and we have a 1976 NA C182 with a BRS. This is the best plane for us:
- 1180 lbs useful load even after the BRS install. We have 700 lbs of payload plus 80 gallons of fuel.
- huge baggage compartment even after the BRS (we have the extended one, plus the shelf)
- will climb to 18K feet at gross, but have to be patient (we regularly cruise at 14,500-16,500 on O2 over the Rockies)
- low insurance and low maintenance
- very docile and with BRS you can go over the mountains and not worry about an engine out

If you don't have patience and have money, go for a turbo.
If you don't care for BRS, I would go for TR182, T210, or a TN Bo. I flew in a T210 and it was amazing at altitude, but not for us.
 
I have about 8000 hours and 50% of my flying is in the highest mountains of the West in my 1964 C-210D which has a gross service ceiling of 21,000', no turbo. I can fly out of the highest public airports in the U.S.at gross. So now tell why a engine life shortening turbo is required. I don't think so if you get the right plane to begin with.
 
It really depends on the plane. In the winter you really don't need a turbo. As pointed out, you will end up driving some, not because of density altitude, just because of weather. We would really need to know more about your usual mission, not your exceptional mission, in order to provide useful advice. It would also help to know what you have been flying and some idea of your budget.
 
I have flown all over Colorado in the summer in a NA Bonanza. I would not even think of flying the same places in the winter due to frequent IFR weather and turbulence. IFR in Colorado means turbo. I wouldn't fly over that terrain IFR single engine in any case, but that's just me.
 
BPM said:
I live in Dallas and, in addition to the weekend hamburger run, my family of four (2 young children) would like to travel to Colorado ski resorts a couple times per year in the winter, as well as a couple destinations in Wyoming and Idaho a couple times in the summer.

I’ve always just assumed that my family wouldn’t want to use oxygen, and therefore I should focus on NA airplanes, however, in sketching out flight plans today to KRXE it seems I’ll need to be in O2-required altitudes for part of the trip.

Given my missions, would I be best served with a turbo vs NA airplane?

Appreciate everyone’s thoughts.
Click to expand...

Check out the cost of oxygen masks and a bottle capable of feeding your crew for "a couple of times a year" and compare it to the cost of a turboed engine with its maintenance costs. You are only required to make oxygen available to passengers for that time spent above 15000.

I have flown into Denver a few times in unpressurized aircraft with oxygen available and never used it. Having said that, in my experience a whiff of O2 can really improve your night vision when you are at 5000' and above....but that has nothing to do with mountains.

Bob Gardner
 
The drop off in performance is quite evident in non-turbo.. you're basically relegated to under 10K and ot live with potentially disastrous climb performance on hot days

Turbo gives you options.. tops at 13K? No problem, climb through that crap and sit on top in the sun
 
I should add that my preference for turbo for his mission stems from having the entire brood along. A bunch of the folks saying non-turbo are also flying solo or well below gross. Fuel management of course can mitigate even the brood, but he said Texas to Colorado in winter. So, that’s why I said it.

I’ll take my non-turbo for maintenance cost and various other reasons every day of the week — and still fly it up in the rocks on nice days.

But if I had a “ski mission” from Texas, and a full airplane including appropriate survival gear for the terrain... give me a turbo and a lot of horsepower and a hauler of an aircraft.

Like someone said... ideally a turboprop... LOL. As long as we are spending someone else’s money... :)
 
One more thing. I have lived and flown in the Rockies for 10 years and have lots of friends with IR. Flying in IMC in this area in a single engine no FIKI plane is dangerous, IMO. The clouds are either stormy or icy. There are exceptions, of course (thin cloud layer over an airport), but they are exceptions.
 
Since my NA plane has a service ceiling of 21000' I carry a portable home made oxy system.oxy top.JPG oxygen system. Portable makes it easy to service. I can simply swap the bottle out at welding supply house if out of date. Should I need to refill enroute I can fill at almost welding shop by carrying a simple adapter as airport fills can be very expensive. I fill at home with a couple of big K cylinders. Cost under $500.
 
We need to separate turbo charged from turbo normalized. Significant maintenance difference between T-N engines over T-C engines.

TN engines are simpler set-ups and put less stress on the engine as max pressure is about 29", usually for only 3-5 mins then 25"-27" continuous. For high efficiency I run mine 2" over-square like 23" & 2100 RPM.

Running at a lower RPM the whole combustion process slows and has the pseudo effect of advancing timing. Meaning lower CHT's and more complete fuel burn. At 16,000' MSL the engine is only running as hard as a normally aspirated engine near sea level, not exactly introducing added stress accelerating maintenance.

Cost are higher at engine overhaul since the turbo-normalized parts are also overhauled; Turbo oil scavenge pump, oil check valve, electric fuel boost pump, turbo overhaul, and sometimes exhaust.

NOT a lot of constant repairs, like any engine, are operated correctly; and no real difference in operational maintenance. Nice to always have the ability to to where other can't or do what many other cannot do.

Once you have an airframe like a turbo-normalized 182 that cruises at 165 TAS fully loaded after a mid-day mountain take-off, it's hard to go back.
 
Last edited:
If you're getting a turbo so you can fly in IMC at high altitudes, you're in to a whole new class of airplane. There is no way I'm taking a non-ice turbo piston airplane so I can make a 16,000 foot MEA in IMC conditions.

An acquaintance of mine tried that in a Cirrus several years ago. He and it are scattered all over Sugarbowl mountain.
 
Snowmass said:
I have about 8000 hours and 50% of my flying is in the highest mountains of the West in my 1964 C-210D which has a gross service ceiling of 21,000', no turbo. I can fly out of the highest public airports in the U.S.at gross. So now tell why a engine life shortening turbo is required. I don't think so if you get the right plane to begin with.
Click to expand...

You have a high horse power engine and probably no strut cantilever wing for reduced drag.
 
NordicDave said:
Significant maintenance difference between T-N engines over T-C engines
Click to expand...
Great point. TN basically keeps you at sea level, is fairly easy to manage as the pilot, and is easier on the engine (for the reasons you mentioned), and was easier for me to get my head around logically with the whole "engine thinks it's at sea level" thing

The unfortunate thing with NA is that even with the throttle all the way in by the time you hit 5 or 6K you're only making around 23 inches.. that's like a 25% cut already from the engine's potential... climb to 10K and you're basically only using half of your engine's available power. That's a lot of extra weight you are carrying in that engine for producing limited power. At 10K that big 8 liter 250 hp engine is making around 125-ish horsepower
 
Sac Arrow said:
no way I'm taking a non-ice turbo piston airplane so I can make a 16,000 foot MEA in IMC conditions
Click to expand...
Very good point. Turbo and ice kind of need to go together. If you want to play in the 15K+ altitude range you need other equipment to handle that, including O2, O2 awareness.. more weather knowledge, etc.

But it does make you realize how much more limited a big non ice non turbo plane is
 
Snowmass said:
So now tell why a engine life shortening turbo is required
Click to expand...
Certainly not required. But having *more* power available, at any altitude, is never really a bad thing.
 
Your chances of dying from Covid are probably lower than dying while screwing around in the Rockies in icing in a non-FIKI airplane.

Might even pucker your butt or worse in the wrong FIKI airplane.

Nope. Not doing that. :) Socially distancing from that!!! :) :) :)
 
Snowmass said:
... So now tell why a engine life shortening turbo is required.
Click to expand...

My 182P Rajay Turbo STC was installed in 1975 with the original engine which about to enter its second overhaul. The engine went 250 hours over TBO and 3 cylinders over 29 years.

Like I posted earlier, she's a plain Jane O-470R with the waste gates open and the turbo system is along for a free ride until asked to work. For me getting the full 230HP when high, hot, and heavy is worth gold. Also there are times climbing 700' per min at 16000 MSL is helpful.
 
Unfortunately turbo-normalization is the minority of stock setups in this old spam can market. There's also the question of support as the fleet number attrition and no cert mx rules relief continue to make third party vendor support a non-starter going forward. I believe @EvilEagle ripped out the aftermarket turbo normalization from his Beech 36 on account of that issue. My exwife also told me she would love me forever, so go with that if so inclined. Your money your chances.
 
Get IR rating. That will be much more useful to you first.
I have a NA Bonanza w/ IO520BB. At 285HP. It’s plenty of power to climb over the peaks of the Rockies. I don’t need a turbo
 
PlasticCigar said:
Maybe it’s just me, but I would get the instrument rating first and decide on what plane you’re getting later. It’s fun to fly the family around, but it’s a huge responsibility- one that you want to take seriously. Your non-pilot passengers have no understanding of the risk, and if you’re a relatively new non-instrument rated pilot you may also under appreciate some of the risks.

Family trips are the most stressful for me. There’s always pressure to go (both implicit and explicit) the timing is usually narrow and the distance are usually longer than the typical trip. Weather in the mountains can be unpredictable and clouds, storms, ice, turbulence and winds can take on different patterns than they do in the flatlands.

Don’t get me wrong - I love flying the family on trips and it’s enabled us to do lots of things we wouldn’t have done otherwise but instead of “turbo vs NA” I would be asking “flying or driving.” As (I’m assuming) a low time non-instrument rated pilot flying single-engine in the mountains during the winter you’re placing yourself in a high risk category. Since your family won’t know this it’s up to you to make good choices.

If I were in your situation I’d wait a few months to see what airplane prices do and get the Sportys or King IFR groundschool course to start working on your instrument written test. Then use some of those excess funds to get your instrument rating and by the time you’re done you’ll be a safer pilot (and have the insurance discounts to show for it).

And to actually answer your question, I would say NA with a big engine. My Ovation has a 20k’ service ceiling and can take off at gross weight in Flagstaff during the summer with no issues (other then my anxiety and telling my wife “if we’re not off the ground by the time we pass THIS taxiway we’re aborting the takeoff!”). Most of the people I spoke to that had owned a turbocharged airplane have had “turbo problems” so I figured no turbo - no turbo problems.

And PLEASE don’t fly passengers at 14.5k’ without oxygen. Buy a $20 pulse ox and give them oxygen when their sat drops below 92%. They’ll appreciate you for it, I promise. Flying with family is all about keeping them comfortable. If they have a headache and are nauseated at the end of every cross country they’re not going to want to do it.
Click to expand...
GREAT ADVICE!! +1

Also take a mountain flying class
 
Turbos (TC or TN) give you more options, at the expense of higher maintenance and operating cost, and some potential failure modes you didn't have without the turbo. They are great if you need that extra power on a regular basis. If I was based in or near the mountains, flying there regularly while trying to escape the bumpy air, a turbo sure sounds nice. For the very occasional trip to the mountains, especially in the winter when density altitude is not as big a problem, I'd do that with my NA airplane.

- Martin
 
MauleSkinner said:
If you’re VFR and flying the mountains in winter, I don’t see a need for turbo. Just plan accordingly.
Click to expand...
If you're VFR and flying the mountains in the winter, I see the need to become instrument rated, before you fly the mountains in winter.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
If you're VFR and flying the mountains in the winter, I see the need to become instrument rated, before you fly the mountains in winter.
Click to expand...
My experience with non-FIKI airplanes in the mountains in the winter involved as much driving as flying, even with an instrument rating, and I can’t think of any flights I’d have made IFR that I couldn’t make VFR.
 
BPM said:
I live in Dallas and, in addition to the weekend hamburger run, my family of four (2 young children) would like to travel to Colorado ski resorts a couple times per year in the winter, as well as a couple destinations in Wyoming and Idaho a couple times in the summer.

I’ve always just assumed that my family wouldn’t want to use oxygen, and therefore I should focus on NA airplanes, however, in sketching out flight plans today to KRXE it seems I’ll need to be in O2-required altitudes for part of the trip.

Given my missions, would I be best served with a turbo vs NA airplane?

Appreciate everyone’s thoughts.
Click to expand...
I am a flat lander too.
I took a mountain flying course in a NA piper Lance. Yes a NA plane can fly in the mountains, but you have to know what you are doing. One of the biggest problems is climb in a NA plane in thin air. A turbocharged airplane will climb better than a NA. I now fly a Turbo Piper Saratoga and go to the Rockies many times. Taking off from a high altitude airport is much easier with a Turbo.

My Saratoga has factory Oxy for 6 person. We use it some of the times but prefer not to because there are many routes through the mountains that do not require you to be at or above 14000 feet.

Yes a Turbo cost more to operate than NA plane but if you can afford the extra cost it is nice to have ability to climb to a higher altitude if you need to get out of a trouble spot.
 
As you consider turbocharged or not, it is worth remembering that a lot of altitude performance involves the wing.

Pipers, with their comparatively short, fat wings (most Pipers, not all) generally don't do as well at altitude as the higher aspect ratio Mooneys & Bonanzas. Even a Cherokee 235 doesn't compare with a similar hp Cessna 182 when it comes to altitude.

This is coming from someone who lives in the Rockies and has owned 5 different naturally aspirated Pipers over the decades. My solution to dealing with the rocks is lots of horsepower, avoid the complexity, cost and added failure modes of turbochargers, fly it light (@denverpilot observation above), avoid the weight penalty of built in O2 (most of the time you are packing it along and not using it), pick your weather windows (I have a 25 knot max upper wind speed limit, beyond which it just gets too rough to be enjoyable) and take a camera (you never know what sort of wonderful pictures over the granite the day may present).

YMMV.

Good luck with the search, and please do let us know what airplane you decide on. Pictures will be mandatory! :D
 
Last edited:
Martin Pauly said:
Turbos (TC or TN) give you more options, at the expense of higher maintenance and operating cost...
Click to expand...

Not true. Turbo-normalizing does not have extra operating costs. Fuel burn and oil consumption are the EXACT same as a normally aspirated engine down low, except the turbo is 20 kts faster in the thinner air. 23 squared non-turbo at 3000' is is identical in cost to operate 23 squared at 16,000 msl turbo-normalized. GPH at 23 sq is the same GPH at 23 sq.

There is additional maintenance outlined in post #26 above. If any aircraft system is abused or mis-operated then maintenance will be higher inside of TBO schedules.

Martin Pauly said:
Turbos (TC or TN) give you ... some potential failure modes you didn't have without the turbo.
Click to expand...

There is a conflating of turbo-charging with turbo-normalizing. Most turbo normalized systems are simple systems and completely out of the loop until asked to add boost. With 100% total and complete turbo failure in flight, the engine operates like a normally aspirated engine.

Martin Pauly said:
They are great if you need that extra power on a regular basis. If I was based in or near the mountains, flying there regularly while trying to escape the bumpy air, a turbo sure sounds nice. For the very occasional trip to the mountains, especially in the winter when density altitude is not as big a problem, I'd do that with my NA airplane.

- Martin
Click to expand...

Yes, the plane has to fit your mission and comfort level.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top