Next time make mine turbo

[steingar]

I'm with Morne on this one. I go across whenever conditions allow. Saves oodles of time, especially because it can obviate a fuel stop.

If we aren't willing to take on risk to save time, why fly at all?

 

[Ted]

I've done plenty of 1400 nm trips in a day never going above 7,000 ft.

You need a faster airplane more than you need turbos.

 

[wsuffa]

I've done plenty of 1400 nm trips in a day never going above 7,000 ft.

You need a faster airplane more than you need turbos.

Your cargo doesn't complain about bumps and a hot cabin....

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[Ted]

Your cargo doesn't complain about bumps and a hot cabin....

Yes they do - they leave messes that I then have to clean up.

 

[n12365]

We were already sucking oxygen from my portable bottle. I always use it above 10K just to help feel better when I arrive (use a finger pulse oximeter at 10K on yourself and you'll do the same).

So having to suck oxygen is not a drawback for me. I do it routinely already. Pressurized would be nice, as would multi-engine, but we'll see. I have four (4) years until I can afford to feed my next step up.

I also use oxygen above 10k (or lower if I am going to flying all day or at night). I get some funny looks when I pull up in a 172 and ask about getting an oxygen bottle refilled, but I feel much better at the end of long day of flying.

Ryan

 

[Everskyward]

I flew turbocharged airplanes but I never took them up to O2 altitudes voluntarily in cruise, only when the job mandated a high altitude or, rarely, when needing to top weather.

 

[wabower]

+1. I get a headache when above 11k for extended periods, takes two days to go away.

I also use oxygen above 10k (or lower if I am going to flying all day or at night). I get some funny looks when I pull up in a 172 and ask about getting an oxygen bottle refilled, but I feel much better at the end of long day of flying.

Ryan

 

[Ted]

+1. I get a headache when above 11k for extended periods, takes two days to go away.

Sounds like me if I don't have my coffee in the morning.

 

[wabower]

Laurie said you are immune from headaches because you're a carrier.

Sounds like me if I don't have my coffee in the morning.

 

[Morne]

I've done plenty of 1400 nm trips in a day never going above 7,000 ft.

You need a faster airplane more than you need turbos.

I don't want turbos to go faster, I want them to preserve climb rate higher up.

You're welcome to fly your twin (of which I am officially envious) at whatever altitude you wish. I chatted with a local Baron pilot yesterday and she files for 8/9K every time. But for ME AND MINE, in my single, I view extra altitude as an added safety margin. In your twin you have options that I do not.

Sure, faster would be nice. When I can afford to pay for faster I will. But if I had to choose between a fast plane and a plane that kept good climb rates above 10K then I'll choose the climber.

 

[wabower]

I'm sitting here comparing POH climb rates above 10k for both NA and T-210s. Damned if I can find whatever it is that he thinks he's gaining. I flew both airplanes for many years and never found it in the air either. I hope he flies both airplanes for sufficient time to get some hard numbers before he spends money in hopes it's there.

I've done plenty of 1400 nm trips in a day never going above 7,000 ft.

You need a faster airplane more than you need turbos.

 

[Clark1961]

I'm sitting here comparing POH climb rates above 10k for both NA and T-210s. Damned if I can find whatever it is that he thinks he's gaining. I flew both airplanes for many years and never found it in the air either. I hope he flies both airplanes for sufficient time to get some hard numbers before he spends money in hopes it's there.

Are you pointing out that either aircraft will get to the same altitude from practical point of view? Or do they really have similar climb performance? I have no experience with either so I'm curious about your point.

The frankenkota can be made to climb well (>1,000 fpm) above 10,000' but that's with power in the five minute settings.

 

[cirrusmx]

The most notable advantage of a turbo is the climb performance at take off. The faster you get off the ground and gain altitude, which is the most dangerous phase of flight, the safer you are going to be. So yes, a turbo is pretty good.

 

[wabower]

Are you pointing out that either aircraft will get to the same altitude from practical point of view? Or do they really have similar climb performance? I have no experience with either so I'm curious about your point.

The frankenkota can be made to climb well (>1,000 fpm) above 10,000' but that's with power in the five minute settings.

In general terms, all of the above. The T will outperform the NA in every aspect, but not by much when all aspects of a year's worth of flying are considered. I've flown the trips and seen the trip sheets, the differences are negligible. NA 210 cruises at 154 KTAS at 15k' with climb rate in excess of 500 FPM at that altitude.

 

[Morne]

In general terms, all of the above. The T will outperform the NA in every aspect, but not by much when all aspects of a year's worth of flying are considered. I've flown the trips and seen the trip sheets, the differences are negligible. NA 210 cruises at 154 KTAS at 15k' with climb rate in excess of 500 FPM at that altitude.

Wayne, I don't own any variant of the 210, I own a NA 182.

OBVIOUSLY, if you start out with more horsepower at sea level you'll have more horsepower at altitude. Hence why the 182 outclimbs the 172. Some of those spiffy Texas Skyways Conversions for the 182 would surely improve my climb rate, too. If my engine were getting near TBO I might consider keeping her and trying Texas Skyways. But at a mere 500-ish hours and running fine there is no way I am doing that.

So another option to turbo would be to get a more powerful engine/airframe combination. Point taken.

 

[Ted]

Laurie said you are immune from headaches because you're a carrier.

Unfortunately it just means that I'm more susceptible to them.

I don't want turbos to go faster, I want them to preserve climb rate higher up.

Understood. The additional benefit (in theory) is that you'll also have a higher TAS as you get to altitude.

The reality of low-power turbo singles is that they end up losing power with altitude as they are virtually never equipped with intercoolers. The turbo works very hard, air gets very hot, and temperatures increase accordingly.

Now, you could use the turbo to more feasibly get to higher altitudes which will result in better tailwinds in some cases. If you plan on operating at those altitudes, though, you'll also find yourself getting into greater headwinds.

You're welcome to fly your twin (of which I am officially envious) at whatever altitude you wish. I chatted with a local Baron pilot yesterday and she files for 8/9K every time. But for ME AND MINE, in my single, I view extra altitude as an added safety margin. In your twin you have options that I do not.

Agreed, and altitude is an important safety feature. But my experience operating turbocharged twins without intercoolers (most notably Navajos) is that you end up not seeing much benefit once you get above 14k. In a T182 I'd expect similar. As I said, the turbo works very hard at those altitudes and your performance suffers. As Wayne said, I think you'll find the actual performance to be less than what you're expecting. Plus your operating costs will increase significantly.

Sure, faster would be nice. When I can afford to pay for faster I will. But if I had to choose between a fast plane and a plane that kept good climb rates above 10K then I'll choose the climber.

Let's say you traded in your 182 for a Bonanza. Now you've got a plane that goes about 40 kts faster, and will also probably have similar climb rates to a 182. I've never had a Bonanza above 10k, but I would expect it to perform decently. Keep in mind that Tornado Alley Turbo offers a very nice package for the Bonanzas that also includes intercoolers. The Bonanzas I've flown do about 170 KTAS @ 14 GPH LOP very happily.

Now, let's say you trade in the 182 for a T182. T182s aren't exactly cheap in large part because of their typical lack of age. You've got a plane that goes about as fast as present on a bit more fuel burn. Climb above 10k might be slightly better than the Bonanza, glide ratio is worse.

It's your money, so of course you need to decide the best way to spend it. Keep in mind that I do like and desire turbos myself, but I'm also at the point where I fly a plane that's on the top end of what certificated piston aircraft will do speed wise.

 

[Ted]

Wayne, I don't own any variant of the 210, I own a NA 182.

OBVIOUSLY, if you start out with more horsepower at sea level you'll have more horsepower at altitude. Hence why the 182 outclimbs the 172. Some of those spiffy Texas Skyways Conversions for the 182 would surely improve my climb rate, too. If my engine were getting near TBO I might consider keeping her and trying Texas Skyways. But at a mere 500-ish hours and running fine there is no way I am doing that.

So another option to turbo would be to get a more powerful engine/airframe combination. Point taken.

The T182 and 182 are rated at the same horsepower. The only difference is the T182 makes more power at altitude than the standard 182.

 

[steingar]

A pal had his Lanceair (the certified version, before the Columbia/Corvalis) at 18K sans turbo. Said his oxygen line kinked and he actually recognized the symptoms of hypoxia. Think was slick, and probably had good glide too.

 

[Morne]

The reality of low-power turbo singles is that they end up losing power with altitude as they are virtually never equipped with intercoolers. The turbo works very hard, air gets very hot, and temperatures increase accordingly.

Intercoolers are certainly a huge plus. Otherwise, it seems like Turbo is just license to shorten engine life.

But I daresay that applies to more than just turbo singles. If you were going to turbocharge a twin you'd want intercoolers as well, right?

No, I am not going to trade in my 182 on a Bonanza. When I am ready for the next step up it will almost certainly be to a twin, and based upon this probably a turbo'ed bird.

 

[Ted]

Intercoolers are certainly a huge plus. Otherwise, it seems like Turbo is just license to shorten engine life.

But I daresay that applies to more than just turbo singles. If you were going to turbocharge a twin you'd want intercoolers as well, right?

To a point. In twins moreso than singles, you see engines that are turbocharged to increase the power output of the engines. For example, the Navajo engines range from 310-350 HP, and the Twin Cessnas in the 340-421 range also make more power. The turbo provides an actual increase in performance over what a naturally aspirated engine could produce.

The lack of intercooler is still a factor indeed, and one of the reasons why the Navajo doesn't do nearly as well as, say, a 414. But the two are designed for different missions - not many people fly a Navajo above 10k anyway.

No, I am not going to trade in my 182 on a Bonanza. When I am ready for the next step up it will almost certainly be to a twin, and based upon this probably a turbo'ed bird.

If you regularly fly missions longer than 600 nm, go for it. If not, I think it's just extra money spent. This is based on my ~1600 hours of piston twin time flying trips of all lengths.

 

[Gubbins]

Here are some numbers directly from the 206H and T206H POH's for a comparison (all at gross weight, standard temperatures).


[206H 14,000 ft (NA)]
2500 RPM,17" MP,126 KTAS,12.6 GPH

[T206H 14,000 ft (Turbo)]
2400 RPM,30" MP, 155 KTAS,19.1 GPH
2400 RPM,20" MP, 126 KTAS, 13.2 GPH

[206H 20,000 ft (NA)]
Unable.

[T206H 20,000 ft (Turbo)]
2400 RPM, 30" MP, 163 KTAS, 19.0 GPH

 

[wabower]

I used the 210 numbers as an example because the airplanes are in the same family and both books were in the shelf by the desk. And to point out that the both airplanes will get to the mid-teens and the NA will acquit itself reasonably well in both cruise and climb rate. Other questions could be raised about climb technique if getting to a higher altitude is desired.

See, I am WILLING to cross that water and the Appalachians at night in a NA single, but I would RATHER have more safety margin.

I have crossed that lake before at the same altitude. But every other time, I was with another pilot. A kindred soul who understands and accepts the risks we all do. This was the first water crossing with a non-pilot in the right seat, and more importantly that passenger was my wife!

I can tolerate risk. Back in my slimmer days I used to go rock climbing. But I don't like putting that risk onto others, especially my family.

Does that mean I don't fly with my honey? Of course not. But what it does mean is that I should make every reasonable effort to minimize those risks. Adding altitude so as to be able to glide to a safe destination is reasonable. Buying a more capable craft when funds allow is also reasonable.

Four years from now, when the house is paid off, I will be able to afford to operate a twin. I just hope the market for twins stays depressed that long...

Wayne, I don't own any variant of the 210, I own a NA 182.

OBVIOUSLY, if you start out with more horsepower at sea level you'll have more horsepower at altitude. Hence why the 182 outclimbs the 172. Some of those spiffy Texas Skyways Conversions for the 182 would surely improve my climb rate, too. If my engine were getting near TBO I might consider keeping her and trying Texas Skyways. But at a mere 500-ish hours and running fine there is no way I am doing that.

So another option to turbo would be to get a more powerful engine/airframe combination. Point taken.

 

[Morne]

If you regularly fly missions longer than 600 nm, go for it. If not, I think it's just extra money spent. This is based on my ~1600 hours of piston twin time flying trips of all lengths.

I didn't think I would be flying this many 500+ nm trips but here I am. I bought a straightleg 182 because my "typical" mission was 250nm each way. Sure, I knew I might have some longer trips every so often but I figured that would be a smaller portion of my overall flying.

The ability to go up to FL180-190 and be 20% more efficient than I am today seems pretty good. Three hours at that altitude could delete a gas stop.

 

[Morne]

Other questions could be raised about climb technique if getting to a higher altitude is desired.

Let's explore this further, shall we?

Remembering that I am a fairly low time pilot (just over 200 hours now) so be gentle.

For a carburated 182 (with no digital engine monitor, just the single analog EGT and CHT gauges) how does one best get to the teens? Especially as you get higher and climb performance starts to fall off?

My normal technique:
1-Takeoff at max RPM and MAP with full cowl flaps open at Vy.
2-Leave these knobs all the way in, since eventually thinner air will bring the power output back on its own.
3-As I pass 5K MSL I start leaning the mixture to bring EGT back up.
4-Continue this until cruise altitude is achieved, then level and configure for cruise (close cowl flaps, RPM back to 2300, trim for level flight and lean some more).

One shortcoming I have already found with my technique is that once I settle in at a higher cruise altitude I seem to have trouble getting everything back into proper climb settings. Either my EGT shoots up way too high or I start shedding speed to below Vy.

 

[Jaybird180]

IIRC in the 182 POH, the prop comes back during the climb. Why not lean to best power setting than leaning by peak EGT? Some POHs (eg C172S) recommend against using EGT as the sole leaning guide.

 

[TangoWhiskey]

I had no illusions about the latter. It takes time for the Coast Guard to spool up a helicopter, and even more for them to get a boat out my way. And it takes time for them to become informed of the situation. I don't think you have more than about 30 minutes in Lake Michigan before you become utterly useless unless you have a survival suit. I have no hopes whatsoever of rescue if I go down there.

Didn't see any boats last time I did it either.

Hmmm, makes one wonder if carrying the right kind of marine portable makes sense, if you traverse the Lake often, to call the Coast Guard directly if the mill stopped spinning.

 

[steingar]

Hmmm, makes one wonder if carrying the right kind of marine portable makes sense, if you traverse the Lake often, to call the Coast Guard directly if the mill stopped spinning.

Who the hell monitors 121.5 and ******* every time anyone so much as makes a peep? What's it there for?

Again, takes time to spool up a helicopter. If wearing a survival suit, you might survive. If you have a raft, you might. But good luck getting a raft out of a quickly sinking aircraft that may or may not be upside down. Good luck doing that while you're dazed from the sudden impact with the water (slowing down from 30-40 mph to nothing is still a tremendous impact). Odds are, if you aren't wearing it you won't have time to get it.

Again, I have no illusions. And I'll still do it if conditions allow. No point in living life without a bit of risk.

 

[denverpilot]

The T182 and 182 are rated at the same horsepower. The only difference is the T182 makes more power at altitude than the standard 182.

Yup. I think the thing folks forget about is that even though the turbo flings the prop around at rated power at say, my home base here... the wing of the aircraft still needs to be flung through the air faster to create the same lift as at sea level.

So you gain power having the turbo, and dang... that's nice when it's a marginal day for takeoff at Leadville, and you get a nice marginal increase in takeoff performance and some help in the climbout, but you're still rolling down that runway hell-a fast before liftoff, groundspeed-wise.

Thus... it may be just cheaper to wait for a colder time of day. That big ol' Cessna wing will also work a little better then, and on up to altitude (well, temperature inversions notwithstanding... GRIN), but the engine power isn't the only factor at play.

The comments about intercoolers are important too... the turbo is limited in what it can ultimately do for ya.

Would I love a turbo 182? Sure. Is it going to fix all my density altitude problems inherent in flying up here? Not a chance. The wing still needs airflow... and those molecules are all spread out and hard to come by.

 

[wabower]

I think you start with reasonable expectations. The Citation III fan-jet that I fly will climb at 3k'/min at low altitude and ~10% of that rate above FL370. You can assume that any airplane's performance will be less than sprightly as it nears its service ceiling, otherwise the service ceiling would be raised by the Mfr until the climb rate decreases to ~certification standards.

Time to climb to an predetermined altitude should be quantified in order to assess alternative procedures. We know that Vy decreases as altitude increases and Vx moves in the opposite direction until the speeds meet at ~service ceiling. Are you adjusting your speeds accordingly?

If the plane simply won't climb to the desired altitude, you should know the reason for the deficiency. Is it the power plant? The airframe? The load? The atmospherics? The instrumentation?

I know from experience that the 180-182's will fly nicely at the altitudes you specified, but obviously don't know all the details of your situation. Most of this is just food for thought anyway, since you're going to be looking at the same scenario for a few years with plenty of time to scratch your head and reflect on where to go from here.

Let's explore this further, shall we?

Remembering that I am a fairly low time pilot (just over 200 hours now) so be gentle.

For a carburated 182 (with no digital engine monitor, just the single analog EGT and CHT gauges) how does one best get to the teens? Especially as you get higher and climb performance starts to fall off?

My normal technique:
1-Takeoff at max RPM and MAP with full cowl flaps open at Vy.
2-Leave these knobs all the way in, since eventually thinner air will bring the power output back on its own.
3-As I pass 5K MSL I start leaning the mixture to bring EGT back up.
4-Continue this until cruise altitude is achieved, then level and configure for cruise (close cowl flaps, RPM back to 2300, trim for level flight and lean some more).

One shortcoming I have already found with my technique is that once I settle in at a higher cruise altitude I seem to have trouble getting everything back into proper climb settings. Either my EGT shoots up way too high or I start shedding speed to below Vy.

 

[Ted]

I didn't think I would be flying this many 500+ nm trips but here I am. I bought a straightleg 182 because my "typical" mission was 250nm each way. Sure, I knew I might have some longer trips every so often but I figured that would be a smaller portion of my overall flying.

The ability to go up to FL180-190 and be 20% more efficient than I am today seems pretty good. Three hours at that altitude could delete a gas stop.

As I said, given what your looking at (which I assume is still a T182 vs 182), I think you'd end up being disappointed with the altitude performance vs. What your posts indicate.

Given the low price of twins (even turbo twins), if that's your desired direction for an upgrade, I'd go for that first. I think you'd probably find yourself happier with the result.

One of my friends bought a T310R and upgraded it to the RAM setup with 335 hp a side. He now will go to 19k feet on eastbound trips, and true out around 230 KTAS. Of course, to get there he's burning more fuel in climb, and ends up not being up there long for most of his trips before ATC sends him down given his location. He loves the setup, and it does work well for him. He's also talking about a plane that does King Air 90 speeds, not a 182. You'll be at a low airspeed and high fuel burn to get high, which will take a while. Heading east, you may see a benefit. West, less so.

If you were talking about a plane that had intercoolers and was better equipped for altitude, I'd say you're thinking right given your goals. But the primary use of the T182's turbo is high altitude take-offs.

The Malibu or SR22 is better designed for altitude engine wise, simply because of its intercoolers. Any other piston single I've seen has a fairly useless turbo.

 

[NineThreeKilo]

Let's explore this further, shall we?

Remembering that I am a fairly low time pilot (just over 200 hours now) so be gentle.

For a carburated 182 (with no digital engine monitor, just the single analog EGT and CHT gauges) how does one best get to the teens? Especially as you get higher and climb performance starts to fall off?

My normal technique:
1-Takeoff at max RPM and MAP with full cowl flaps open at Vy.
2-Leave these knobs all the way in, since eventually thinner air will bring the power output back on its own.
3-As I pass 5K MSL I start leaning the mixture to bring EGT back up.
4-Continue this until cruise altitude is achieved, then level and configure for cruise (close cowl flaps, RPM back to 2300, trim for level flight and lean some more).

One shortcoming I have already found with my technique is that once I settle in at a higher cruise altitude I seem to have trouble getting everything back into proper climb settings. Either my EGT shoots up way too high or I start shedding speed to below Vy.

You will want to decrease your IAS by about 1% per 1000', so at 10k you should be pitching for 10% under your normal IAS Vy.

If you want the background on that check this out
http://home.pcisys.net/~aghorash/Why_Vx_and_Vy_Change_With_Altitude.pdf

I normally leave it full rich and start bringing it back to maintain my target EGT as my temp falls off with altitude.

 

[Morne]

As I said, given what your looking at (which I assume is still a T182 vs 182), I think you'd end up being disappointed with the altitude performance vs. What your posts indicate.

Given the low price of twins (even turbo twins), if that's your desired direction for an upgrade, I'd go for that first. I think you'd probably find yourself happier with the result.

One of my friends bought a T310R and upgraded it to the RAM setup with 335 hp a side. He now will go to 19k feet on eastbound trips, and true out around 230 KTAS. Of course, to get there he's burning more fuel in climb, and ends up not being up there long for most of his trips before ATC sends him down given his location. He loves the setup, and it does work well for him. He's also talking about a plane that does King Air 90 speeds, not a 182. You'll be at a low airspeed and high fuel burn to get high, which will take a while. Heading east, you may see a benefit. West, less so.

If you were talking about a plane that had intercoolers and was better equipped for altitude, I'd say you're thinking right given your goals. But the primary use of the T182's turbo is high altitude take-offs.

The Malibu or SR22 is better designed for altitude engine wise, simply because of its intercoolers. Any other piston single I've seen has a fairly useless turbo.

The Cessna 337 has ever intrigued me. A turbo version of that, with inter coolers, might be the ticket. The P337, again with inter coolers, might be ideal.

 

[Ted]

The Cessna 337 has ever intrigued me. A turbo version of that, with inter coolers, might be the ticket. The P337, again with inter coolers, might be ideal.

It's a neat airplane, and might serve you well. Intercoolers would be a requirement, IMHO.

 

[Arbiter419]

Yup. I think the thing folks forget about is that even though the turbo flings the prop around at rated power at say, my home base here... the wing of the aircraft still needs to be flung through the air faster to create the same lift as at sea level.

So you gain power having the turbo, and dang... that's nice when it's a marginal day for takeoff at Leadville, and you get a nice marginal increase in takeoff performance and some help in the climbout, but you're still rolling down that runway hell-a fast before liftoff, groundspeed-wise.

Thus... it may be just cheaper to wait for a colder time of day. That big ol' Cessna wing will also work a little better then, and on up to altitude (well, temperature inversions notwithstanding... GRIN), but the engine power isn't the only factor at play.

The comments about intercoolers are important too... the turbo is limited in what it can ultimately do for ya.

Would I love a turbo 182? Sure. Is it going to fix all my density altitude problems inherent in flying up here? Not a chance. The wing still needs airflow... and those molecules are all spread out and hard to come by.

I think I get what you're saying...we need to turbo the wings right?

Boys, get to the drawing boards!

 

[TangoWhiskey]

I think I get what you're saying...we need to turbo the wings right?

Boys, get to the drawing boards!

No, we need to compress the atmosphere!

 

[wabower]

All airplanes fly with nose-up attitude when at the upper end of their operating altitudes. The increased deck angle is more noticeable in the Cessna's than the M/M's, which I attribute to the Piper's longer wing.

 

[Ted]

All airplanes fly with nose-up attitude when at the upper end of their operating altitudes. The increased deck angle is more noticeable in the Cessna's than the M/M's, which I attribute to the Piper's longer wing.

Piper designed the Malibu with the intent of flying higher, hence the longer wings.

Of course, they also knew that the engines would fail regularly, and long wings do help the glide ratio...

 

[Jaybird180]

IIRC in the 182 POH, the prop comes back during the climb. Why not lean to best power setting than leaning by peak EGT? Some POHs (eg C172S) recommend against using EGT as the sole leaning guide.

My mistake on this. All of it. Dunno what I was thinking when I wrote this.