Performance - 206 TSIO520 vs IO550

C

C_Parker

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Mar 11, 2019
Messages
149
Display Name
Display name:
x
Hey guys,

My family is quickly outgrowing my 182, I recently found out there's another addition to the family on the way and expected to be here in 7 months. I'm looking for some real-world feedback from folks who own 70s-80s 206s with either the TSIO520 or the IO550 (not the stock IO520). Or, if you know of where I can find this data somewhere, I'm happy to go sift through it... I just haven't been able to find it.

Actual climb rate at gross, ~8-10k ft density altitude
Cruise fuel burn and speed
Actual full fuel payload with typical interior/panel

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
https://backcountrypilot.org/forum
Check out back country pilot forums. Lots of good Intel on 206s and upgrades. From what I can gather even a IO550 has a rough time as you get towards 6k DA. But the turbo consumes Connie pistons like crazy. I push a T182T(Lyco, but turbo failed before TBO) for work but thinking about a 206 that I can also fly for work, so in a similar boat. Gonna be based out of a 7k field soon.
 
I can't help you with anything 206 specific, but I have flown/owned both engines in the Beech airframe. Unless you really really need the turbo due to DA issues, I would go with the 550. Easier to manage, lighter, less expensive to maintain. Nominally, both had 300hp, but for some reason the NA bird is off the runway a much shorter distance. Oh, and it doesn't have the drinking problem that the TSIO had.
 
Fellow 182 owner. I have nothing or add to the conversation other than to wish congratulations to you and your family.
 
Both versions are going to start out at roughly 300hp. The NA -550 is going to deteriorate at ~3% per thousand, so it will be down to 210hp at a DA of 10,000’, whereas the TSIO-520 will still be putting out 310hp at 10,000’ (G models, 285hp continuous for F and prior). That’s 30% more power - a huge margin. There’s a lot of IO-550 fanboydom as far as I can tell, and yes, the TSIO-520 will cost more to operate long term, but if you want performance at altitude I don’t see why you would pick a normally aspirated engine.

I had a turbocharged 182 for a while and operated out of 7,000’ elevation airport. Just like sea-level. It was amazing. The plane itself was a piece of $#’)#, but when it was working...
 
Geosync: thanks for the tip, I've cross posted this on both forums hoping for a response

weilke: thanks for the beech cross reference, that will be helpful info

Brad: Thank you!!

AA5Bman: that's the sort of feedback I figured I'd get. The 550 sounds great on paper and may be a bit cheaper, but I don't see how the TSIO520 couldn't woop it at altitude.
 
Personal opinion: Avoid the TSIO-520. The turbo will add significant maintenance cost. Yes the turbo will be faster at altitude, but you'll have to be >10k for it to be faster and in reality you won't want to be up to where you'll truly see it faster.

Plus, the turbo system weighs more which hurts useful load.

I base the above on experiences with naturally aspirated and turbocharged Twin Cessnas.
 
I have a turbo for on my 182P. The performance is fantastic. While others are stuck on the ground in high DA scenarios, I'm taking off and landing with performance for go-arounds etc.

Critical is watching Turbo inlet temps as they must stay below 1600 F. The system takes more care in monitoring, but well worth it for high density Ops and flying high over mountains. I fly over the Sierras frequently and occasionally over areas of the Rockies. I follow roads below as a safety measure and stay comfortably over mountain waves near 5,000 AGL.

Generally speaking, every 1000 hrs of turbo ops or engine overhaul expect about 30-40% uplift on engine overhaul coasts to address the turbo system. If someone is burning up turbos, wastegates, or cylinders; have a re-examination of operating procedures. Likely running too hot and/or too lean.
 
I think people who say the turbo is not worth it are generally thinking about it in terms of climbing and cruising performance with a turbo. But that’s not why I think about a turbo - I think about it almost exclusively for takeoff performance because of where I’m based and what I like to do. I’m not concerned about climbing into the high teens for speed, I’m not concerned about even my general climb performance (I.e. cruise climb). Takeoffs from short rough fields at high DA - that’s it. If you’re based at a high DA field or that’s what you want to do, great. I remember when I had that turbo 182, the cruise performance vs. my expectation was terrible. Maaaaaybe worth a few knots (and like 2-3gph) at the altitudes I really wanted to fly at. But takeoff at a 10,000’ (or nearly) DA? Like a dream.

I saw your (or what I presume to be your post) at BCP. I suspect you have similar desires.

PS, I know a TU206G owner that had exhaust problems. It took almost $25k to fix it. So, you know, the added costs aren’t just totally make believe.
 
Yep that's mine, takeoff performance is a factor to me, I fly a lot of back country so climbing out of remote strips with safe clearance of terrain is paramount.
 
AA5Bman said:
I think people who say the turbo is not worth it are generally thinking about it in terms of climbing and cruising performance with a turbo. But that’s not why I think about a turbo - I think about it almost exclusively for takeoff performance because of where I’m based and what I like to do. I’m not concerned about climbing into the high teens for speed, I’m not concerned about even my general climb performance (I.e. cruise climb). Takeoffs from short rough fields at high DA - that’s it. If you’re based at a high DA field or that’s what you want to do, great. I remember when I had that turbo 182, the cruise performance vs. my expectation was terrible. Maaaaaybe worth a few knots (and like 2-3gph) at the altitudes I really wanted to fly at. But takeoff at a 10,000’ (or nearly) DA? Like a dream.

I saw your (or what I presume to be your post) at BCP. I suspect you have similar desires.

PS, I know a TU206G owner that had exhaust problems. It took almost $25k to fix it. So, you know, the added costs aren’t just totally make believe.
Click to expand...

Up around 14-16K MSL I'm seeing an average of 162-165 TAS max gross in my 182. Tremendous performer, especially with the Robertson STOL kit. The turbo combined with the R/STOL kit is a great mountain bird. Max gross stall is 34kts. Stalling as the mains touch down helps produce the most buttery smooth landings.
 
Turbo vote here. More maintenance and more to manage but you have the full capability of that displacement through most of the flight envelope. Plus you are putting that otherwise wasted exhaust gas back to good use.

Fuel burn:
yes you will burn more, but you also caring more power up at altitude and going faster. If you want to burn less pull the power back

Performance:
It is not just about "how often are you at 10K?!" .. at 3% per 1,000 ft by the time you're at 5,000 ft you will already notice a big degradation in climb performance. Hot days when people are stressing.. the turbo does fine..

Outside of "I can't afford it" I don't believe there's any objective reason for why you would pick naturally aspirated over turbocharged
 
NordicDave said:
Up around 14-16K MSL I'm seeing an average of 162-165 TAS max gross in my 182. Tremendous performer, especially with the Robertson STOL kit. The turbo combined with the R/STOL kit is a great mountain bird. Max gross stall is 34kts. Stalling as the mains touch down helps produce the most buttery smooth landings.
Click to expand...

Okay that’s legit. I did not get those speeds in my POS turbo’ed 182. I’m still only really in it for the takeoff performance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top