Tubo East of Rockies

[spiderweb]

For those of you who turbo east of the Rockies, how often to you take advantage of it, and why?

There have been days when I wished I had a way to climb up into the flight levels and catch a 100 knot tailwind back to MD. There have been other days when it would have been nice to be at FL220 looking down on TCUs and keeping well-distant, rather than flying in the clouds relying on NexRad and Stormscope.

 

[Henning]

I found that I used it little enough when I had it that I didn't require it on this plane, but then I am more comfortable on the deck than in the flight levels.

 

[frfly172]

For the extra maintenance and fuel ,east of the Rockies I would be fine without turbo.

 

[flyingmoose]

I find it quite useful for anyone doing any kind of real travel. Like you said, its not just the rocks you need to be over, but weather and such. Its a great option. Just did a trip to SQQ last week in a T182 and didn't even use the option, but its real nice to have sometimes

 

[Clark1961]

For the extra maintenance and fuel ,east of the Rockies I would be fine without turbo.

While I understand that many folks believe that turbo=more fuel, that claim is not based on universal truth. The 'kota is dial-a-burn and I frequently run it at 30" and 9 to 10 gph. With those fuel burns I get 130 to 135 kts which gets me into the 15 (little) miles/gal range which is pretty good for a PA-28.

I do have the option of burning more gas and going faster (and topping the engine sooner) but it is not a requirement. A turbocharged engine when operated properly is a more efficient engine since it recovers some of the energy lost by normally aspirated engines.

I fly both over the mountains and over the prairie. I've had the 'kota in the flight levels exactly once. It's limited to 20k so no point in thinking about higher anyway. It still climbs really nicely at 17k and that is one of the nicer things about the turbo. One comment about going into the flight levels is the need for a mask rather than cannula for O2. Mask=not-so-much-fun from my perspective.

The 'kota is most efficient at 8k but it really doesn't lose much performance to fly higher or lower so I generally fly around 10k to 11k to get above the riff-raff (RV's in zoom climbs, etc.).

 

[GCA319]

Sometimes it's nice to be able to get up into the flight levels on a long trip. Sometimes the winds are more favorable and alot of the time you'll get a better ride.

 

[wsuffa]

I find it quite useful for anyone doing any kind of real travel. Like you said, its not just the rocks you need to be over, but weather and such. Its a great option. Just did a trip to SQQ last week in a T182 and didn't even use the option, but its real nice to have sometimes

This.

It gives you options. But you do have additional maintenance and O2. I've made some trips that I otherwise would not have made were it not for the turbo. Enough additional power and a lighter airframe (ala E-AB aircraft) with a normally aspirated engine could potentially get you there.

 

[ChitDisturber]

I've crossed the country a few times (north and south routes) and spent very little time above 9k, this was done in n/a pistons.

Doubt I'd pay for the food and keep of a turbo engine.
Just not in a HUGE hurry to get across and if I was I'd just boom a ticket on kayak.

Also not a fan of having crap up my nose or wearing a mask for a cross country, just doesn't jive with the mission of flying my own plane for fun.

 

[Baron2PG]

Had a turbo-Lance for many years. The plane had built-in O2. Rarely took it above 12K feet because my family refused to suck on O2; I don't really care for a cannula stuck up my nose either. Try getting a child to sit still with one of those things jammed in their face.

It was nice to have the Turbo on rare occasions but not really necessary. I never had any maintenance issues with the turbocharger in the ~1000 hours I flew that plane. I did spend plenty of time with the darn built-in 02 system (POS). I think the greatest additional cost was simply fuel consumption. At lower altitudes the turbo burned a bit more fuel then the NA; it was a bit faster but harder to keep the CHTs and TIT under control.

If I had to do it over again I would not have bought the Turbo-Lance; I would have bought a NA Lance or Saratoga instead.

 

[Henning]

I've crossed the country a few times (north and south routes) and spent very little time above 9k, this was done in n/a pistons.

Doubt I'd pay for the food and keep of a turbo engine.
Just not in a HUGE hurry to get across and if I was I'd just boom a ticket on kayak.

Also not a fan of having crap up my nose or wearing a mask for a cross country, just doesn't jive with the mission of flying my own plane for fun.

That and the loss of the view quality is what would keep me out of the flight levels, but I did like being able to get 180kts cruise out of my Travelair in the 8000' - 12,500' range and passing Barons at 12,500'. My 310 makes 180 easily without turbos so I don't much have a burning desire for them.

 

[Jeff K]

While I understand that many folks believe that turbo=more fuel, that claim is not based on universal truth.

Yeap. I had a Cherokee 6 PA32-260 that had the rajay turbo STC (a truly awful rube goldburg arrangement). Yet I could get sea level power to about 13,500 feet.

The furthest west I flew was Kansas. What I mostly used the turbo-charger for though was operating LOP at the higher altitudes.... generally even oversquared. You just can't do this at any reasonable power level much over 6-7K feet in a NA bird. For this I'd get fuel burns in the range of 12-14gph humming along at upwards of 175mph TAS... pretty much the fastest PA32-260 in the air. I usually cruised between 10-16K feet.

 

[ChitDisturber]

You just can't do this at any reasonable power level much over 6-7K feet in a NA bird.

Are you saying you can get reasonable power above 7k in a N/A aircraft?!

If that's the case I would ground that aircraft until a A&P can go over it, guessing it has some major engine wear, maybe low compression or/or something else.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Are you saying you can get reasonable power above 7k in a N/A aircraft?!

If that's the case I would ground that aircraft until a A&P can go over it, guessing it has some major engine wear, maybe low compression or/or something else.

No kidding. My Baron (NA) seems to perform best (speed for fuel burn) between 8 and 10k.

 

[Jeff K]

Are you saying you can get reasonable power above 7k in a N/A aircraft?!

Re-read what I posted and in context this time. If you are able to run LOP at 12K/65% power in a non-turbo airplane please explain how you can do it. Extra credit if you're able to do it oversquared.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Re-read what I posted and in context this time. If you are able to run LOP at 12K/65% power in a non-turbo airplane please explain how you can do it. Extra credit if you're able to do it oversquared.

You said you couldn't get decent power above 7k....now you're saying 12?

 

[Clark1961]

You said you couldn't get decent power above 7k

Nope, that's not what he wrote.

 

[jnmeade]

I liked my T210 and ran it LOP at 8-12K most of the time, with a couple of trips 16k-17k. flew the midwest.

 

[weilke]

I like it. Use it on every flight. Prefer to go into the cool air above the bumps. Also allowed me to cross a line of weather at 17k without having to go into IMC, something I prefer to avoid in convective weather.

 

[bbchien]

Ice avoidance in winter.
Stable air in the summer- we spend at most 3 minutes each way, below the condensation line in summer.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Nope, that's not what he wrote.

Ok, thanks - I was just seeing the excerpt that chit disturber posted. I see what he is saying now.

 

[Ted]

Almost all of my time flying turbo and non-turbo twins has found that I made very few operational changes because of turbos.

Just crossed the Rockies (twice) in the 310 (naturally aspirated). Yes, turbos would have been nice, but not essential. Most people don't like cannulas. I'm one of them, but they beat falling asleep.

Turbos do add MX costs. More parts to break (and they aren't cheap).

Keep in mind that most turbos aren't exactly happy up high, either, so it really shifts your happy range from 6-12k up to 10-16k in most cases.

 

[Baron2PG]

You said you couldn't get decent power above 7k....now you're saying 12?

Guys, this is a friendly forum so why pick nits where it isn't relevant.

In general, the physics are pretty simple, with a NA airplane you run out of throttle (MAP) around 7K' give or take. Thus by definition you have less MAP = HP at altitude higher then 7K'. Configurations of the intake plumbing can buy you a few hundred feet either way.

However, the air also gets thinner so your IAS is lower then your TAS; less drag. So even though you have less HP the aircraft will maintain relatively constant performance for a few thousand feet. Each aircraft design will behave differently depending on the propeller, lifting surface aerodynamics, and the cruise RPM. (PS: "over-square, or 23 square, isn't a meaningful measurement). So just because your plane is cruising at its best TAS doesn't mean your engine is producing peak HP. My plane for example hits 23" of MAP ~7K but cruises quite nicely at 8-10K. Any higher and my TAS starts to fall off.

Again, in general most NA airplane will be able to maintain cruise power (75%) up to ~7K'. After that, only a boosted engine can maintain cruise power.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Guys, this is a friendly forum so why pick nits where it isn't relevant.

Apparently you have the same reading comprehension problem that I did. I didn't see his original post and after finding it and reading the quoted excerpt in context I corrected myself.

Tapatalk is pretty convenient but has its challenges.

 

[Jeff K]

Yeah, I was just talking about the ability to run LOP/oversquared at reasonable power levels (like 65% percent) at cruise altitudes... which was the primary use of my old turbo PA32 east of the rockies. Sorry I wasn't as clear as I could be.

 

[Jeff K]

Almost all of my time flying turbo and non-turbo twins has found that I made very few operational changes because of turbos.

Just crossed the Rockies (twice) in the 310 (naturally aspirated). Yes, turbos would have been nice, but not essential. .

So you used to own a NA Aztec right? I just had a request to fly my daughter and a bunch of her friends to Aspen this summer. I committed as far as Denver (which keeps my mins at 8K) but how did you feel about the Aztec at 14K or higher (IFR mins on the full route)? I've got a C model with good shape engines but haven't taken it over 10K yet. I'll load it down and take it to 18K and see how it does first. Plane has O2

That said, I'm not going to fly into Aspen unless both the performance and VFR conditions are there.

 

[Ted]

So you used to own a NA Aztec right? I just had a request to fly my daughter and a bunch of her friends to Aspen this summer. I committed as far as Denver (which keeps my mins at 8K) but how did you feel about the Aztec at 14K or higher (IFR mins on the full route)? I've got a C model with good shape engines but haven't taken it over 10K yet. I'll load it down and take it to 18K and see how it does first. Plane has O2

That said, I'm not going to fly into Aspen unless both the performance and VFR conditions are there.

You are correct - mine was a 1969 Aztec D, naturally aspirated.

Interestingly, I was just having this discussion with another former Aztec owner who also now flies a Twin Cessna. In my experience, 12k was the max it would fly loaded, and it was really happier at or below 10k. I had it to 14k solo and it was fine in the winter, but not the summer. When I went to Denver in the summer, it was an 8500 DA day at 4500 MSL. I had the plane at 9k MSL and it was 85F outside, DA was very high. The plane was not happy at all.

If you can get it to 18k loaded up in any condition without it feeling like it was about to fall off a cliff, I'd be surprised.

I'd stick to Denver and not go to Aspen, personally.

 

[Geico266]

I've flown over the rocks many times in non turbo experimentals. No need for a turbo anywhere based on my experiences.

I just flew a RV-12 LSA over the rocks to Santa Rosa. I had a blast!

 

[Clark1961]

I'd stick to Denver and not go to Aspen, personally.

Good advise. Depending on weather, Rifle may be a good alternative to Aspen. It's likely that one could stay under 11k getting to Rifle from Denver by going to Hayden on the northern route (not Corona pass) and hanging a left. But just for general planning stopping in Denver is darn good advise.

 

[bbchien]

I've flown over the rocks many times in non turbo experimentals. No need for a turbo anywhere based on my experiences.

I just flew a RV-12 LSA over the rocks to Santa Rosa. I had a blast!

..yeah, if real VFR with two up is all you do.....

When you are flying 4, with gear in the wintertime with an arrival date, it's a different matter.....

....so "it depends".
I have, been wondering how one gets boost out of a tubo. Mostly you get a log "G" out of a tubo. Sound like something my once long ago 3 year old would have said....

 

[Clark1961]

..yeah, if real VFR with two up is all you do.....

When you are flying 4, with gear in the wintertime with an arrival date, it's a different matter.....

Or if you want to depart on a summer afternoon...a turbo has it's place. It's not a be-all, do-all but it does help.

 

[Jeff K]

If you can get it to 18k loaded up in any condition without it feeling like it was about to fall off a cliff, I'd be surprised.

I'd stick to Denver and not go to Aspen, personally.

If you'd told me 14K was no problem, I'd test it to 18K and then go. You didn't so I'll stick to Denver lacking anything else. I have had it to 10K returning from Oshkosh over the lake... it was still climbing but not what I'd expect it to be to keep going up much more.

Occasionally I'm wishing I bought a turbo aztec but being this was my first twin I opt'ed for as easy as possible. So far I've been quite pleased.

Thanks for the tip.

 

[Jeff K]

Good advise. Depending on weather, Rifle may be a good alternative to Aspen. It's likely that one could stay under 11k getting to Rifle from Denver by going to Hayden on the northern route (not Corona pass) and hanging a left. But just for general planning stopping in Denver is darn good advise.

Yeah, thanks. I'm coming from Michigan so if I cross due West to Medicine bow and then over to Hayden via victor airways should give me an MEA no higher then 10K. Continuing on to RIFLE the MEA's are 12400. I'm however not going to do any IFR past Medicine bow as I have no experience with IFR in the mountains. What's the weather like in your neck of the woods in late June?

 

[Clark1961]

Yeah, thanks. I'm coming from Michigan so if I cross due West to Medicine bow and then over to Hayden via victor airways should give me an MEA no higher then 10K. Continuing on to RIFLE the MEA's are 12400. I'm however not going to do any IFR past Medicine bow as I have no experience with IFR in the mountains. What's the weather like in your neck of the woods in late June?

June is okay, early is generally benign and out of the spring winds, late June may get into the afternoon thunderstorm cycle. The monsoon doesn't show up until July/August. Of course late afternoon thunderstorms can show up any time from May to September.

 

[Ted]

Good advise. Depending on weather, Rifle may be a good alternative to Aspen. It's likely that one could stay under 11k getting to Rifle from Denver by going to Hayden on the northern route (not Corona pass) and hanging a left. But just for general planning stopping in Denver is darn good advise.

I'd do it in the 310, but not the Aztec. The 310 is also a much better altitude performer.

Or if you want to depart on a summer afternoon...a turbo has it's place. It's not a be-all, do-all but it does help.

First time I crossed the Rockies was in a Navajo in July. I was happy having turbos for that. They also definitely helped on the takeoff roll vs. my 8500 DA takeoff in the Aztec out of LMO a few years ago.

If you'd told me 14K was no problem, I'd test it to 18K and then go. You didn't so I'll stick to Denver lacking anything else. I have had it to 10K returning from Oshkosh over the lake... it was still climbing but not what I'd expect it to be to keep going up much more.

Occasionally I'm wishing I bought a turbo aztec but being this was my first twin I opt'ed for as easy as possible. So far I've been quite pleased.

Thanks for the tip.

You're welcome. In the 1,000 hours of hard flying I did with the Aztec, I explored just about every realm I think that airplane could do. It was an excellent machine, but there's a reason you don't see many of them in the mountain areas. Piper just didn't design the things with that as the goal.

When I bought the Aztec I figured I wouldn't be doing long enough trips to need a turbo. Then I found that 1,000 nm in a day was normal for me, and wished I'd bought a turbo model. Then I learned more about the turbo Aztec and figured that the extra cost wasn't worth it for the relatively few times I'd truly benefit, and ultimately I still stand by that.

After the 310 came along, we had the two planes for a bit, but once the 310 came into the picture the Aztec's days were numbered, and when it came time to downsize a plane, the Aztec was the easy choice to get rid of. With 520s in the 310, I rarely find myself wanting for a turbo. I just make up for it with more power to start with.

 

[spiderweb]

Thanks, everyone, for the informative responses!