Tur-Bo or not Tur-Bo. That is the question.

R

Rneuwirth

Pre-Flight
Joined
Jun 4, 2011
Messages
39
Location
Wyoming
Display Name
Display name:
Rneuwirth
Speaking of typical non-pressurized piston singles that are available both normally aspirated and as a turbocharged variant, I understand the improvement in speed and altitude ability versus the increased cost and complexity of engine management (i understand this at least theoretically).

My question relates to the real world improvement in weather avoidance. If the majority of flights are to be east of the Rockies, but (hopefully) throughout the year, does the addition of 5 or 6000 feet MSL truly help enough to allow more comfortable or safer flights, making the additional cost a reasonable investment?
 
Willing to suck on O2?

After travel vs flying in circles?

Can you afford the turbo?

Even in the flats Wyoming isn't very low so it may be good for you vs me, living in flatter than flat and rarely needing to venture above 7k a turbo would just suck maintenance.

What is your typical flight?
 
Looking for a platform to travel fairly long distances, mostly eastward. Children and grandkids as far as Chicago and Central Florida.
 
Cost realistically less of an issue than complexity. I've been told that anything less than near perfect engine management can really cause reliability issues.
 
Kinda depends, what plane are you looking at? A Bonanza? "Tur-Bo"?
 
I have owned a turbo Mooney (Mooney 231) for many years, and even though I fly out of a field that's 20ft msl, and it's a two hour flight to the nearest hill, I love it! Hot, humid, bumpy and hazy summer day? Not at 12,000 it's not. And climbing there is as easy as if it were a standard 50* day. Eastbound from the midwest? You should see the groundspeeds at 17,000! On my way home from the Gulf coast a few months ago, a glance at the lit-up-like-Christmas radar revealed it to be nearly unflyable for most of the route. I started climbing, and at 15,000, flew very comfortably between isolated buildups, rather than the very wet and uncomfortable thundery ride 10,000 feet below me. I was out west over Alberta a few years back, IFR, on top at maybe 13,000 feet. Controller told me he had a higher MEA and traffic, wondered if I could possibly accept FL190. Whee! Why, soitenly. I dug out the old O2 masks to replace the nasal canulas, and headed on up at a comfortable 700 fpm. The view of the Rockies from there was breathtaking. Leaned to 10gph, 187 knots across the ground, it was almost cheaper than staying home. Yes, I like my turbo Mooney very much, even though I didn't set out to buy one-- this is what there was a 1/4 share in available there and then. Would I buy one again, even though I'm usually happy enough at 8000? I think so... I've become very spoiled. It's just so capable of a nice climb when that's going to result in a smoother, faster ride.
And, touch wood, I haven't found the maintenance to be much more expensive than a comparable normally-aspirated Mooney... I did replace the turbocharger once, many years ago. The last engine went nearly 200 hours past TBO before it just felt tired, began to use more oil, and I replaced it more for my peace of mind than necessity.
 
Last edited:
Actually, my dream plane (2-3 years from now) is the Columbia 350/400 from 2002-2004. Some of those available with fairly low time.

More likely, depending on the economy would be a Bonanza, 182 or 210/206.
 
Rneuwirth said:
Speaking of typical non-pressurized piston singles that are available both normally aspirated and as a turbocharged variant, I understand the improvement in speed and altitude ability versus the increased cost and complexity of engine management (i understand this at least theoretically).

My question relates to the real world improvement in weather avoidance. If the majority of flights are to be east of the Rockies, but (hopefully) throughout the year, does the addition of 5 or 6000 feet MSL truly help enough to allow more comfortable or safer flights, making the additional cost a reasonable investment?
Click to expand...


Depends on the time of year, but if you're flying IFR up north in the winter you also have to consider the advantage of being able to maintain full power climbing through icing. Climbing ability is what horsepower buys you, maintaining horsepower as you climb is what turbos buy you. To me not a great advantage for weather though because where I mostly fly, turbos won't get me above it and I prefer to stay below it.
 
Amelia said:
I have owned a turbo Mooney (Mooney 231) for many years, and even though I fly out of a field that's 20ft msl, and it's a two hour flight to the nearest hill, I love it! Hot, humid, bumpy and hazy summer day? Not at 12,000 it's not. And climbing there is as easy as if it were a standard 50* day. Eastbound from the midwest? You should see the groundspeeds at 17,000! On my way home from the Gulf coast a few months ago, a glance at the lit-up-like-Christmas radar revealed it to be nearly unflyable for most of the route. I started climbing, and at 15,000, flew very comfortably between isolated buildups, rather than the very wet and uncomfortable thundery ride 10,000 feet below me. I was out west over Alberta a few years back, IFR, on top at maybe 13,000 feet. Controller told me he had a higher MEA and traffic, wondered if I could possibly accept FL190. Whee! Why, soitenly. I dug out the old O2 masks to replace the nasal canulas, and headed on up at a comfortable 700 fpm. The view of the Rockies from there was breathtaking. Leaned to 10gph, 187 knots across the ground, it was almost cheaper than staying home. Yes, I like my turbo Mooney very much, even though I didn't set out to buy one-- this is what there was a 1/4 share in available there and then. Would I buy one again, even though I'm usually happy enough at 8000? I think so... I've become very spoiled. It's just so capable of a nice climb when that's going to result in a smoother, faster ride.
Click to expand...

This is the perfect example of the benefit of a turbo for travel:thumbsup:
 
Rneuwirth said:
Actually, my dream plane (2-3 years from now) is the Columbia 350/400 from 2002-2004. Some of those available with fairly low time.

More likely, depending on the economy would be a Bonanza, 182 or 210/206.
Click to expand...

For the trip you mentioned A T210 might be a good choice
 
Just can't resist a little proselytizing: Do take a look at some late-model Mooneys. More cabin room than you might expect, gorgeous interiors, much less fuel consumption than other high-performance singles, and so quick! I've found my 1980 one to be adequate with four people and a bit of luggage, perfectly fine with two grandchildren in their car-seats- or vying for Grandpa's lap up front, (en route) with his (right) seat all the way back. It's downright luxurious with just the two of us.
 
If you're looking at long trips, absolutely get the turbos. The extra altitude will help weather avoidance, and the extra speed (and ability to go higher up to get better tailwinds) will make quite a difference on long trips. I didn't buy a turbo plane because I wasn't sure I'd see the full benefit of the turbos. Boy was I wrong - I wish I'd spent the money. I just wish there was a way to add turbos to the 310 now.

As far as planes to look at, a turbo Bo would be a good option. I also wouldn't discount a 320 or T310 if you're considering a twin - you could find one with de-ice more easily, and the purchase prices are cheaper than you'd imagine. I haven't found maintenance on the 310 to be bad.
 
Last edited:
Rneuwirth said:
Actually, my dream plane (2-3 years from now) is the Columbia 350/400 from 2002-2004. Some of those available with fairly low time.

More likely, depending on the economy would be a Bonanza, 182 or 210/206.
Click to expand...

I've owned a few aircraft in both configurations of the engine. The two I most enjoyed were the Commander 115 and 115 TC and the Columbia 350 and 400. I live on the east coast also flying out of a sea level airport. All of the advantages you frequently read about are readily apparent in the TC aircraft - getting up high, more speed, etc. My goal was extracting the greatest utility from the aircraft i.e. a high 'go' rate so the aircraft were fully equipped with all the toys available for weather. For me the biggest advantage of the turbocharged birds was the ability to climb quickly while making good forward speed. Most of the days here when icing is a factor, the layer is a relatively thin one. The ability to punch through it at 1300 fpm while still making 160 TAS in the Columbia 400 was the 'go factor' on most of those flights.

Speed is a wonderful thing but for the small increase in speed you get down out of the O2 levels, it's probably not something you'd spend the extra money on for gas, maintenance, and acquisition cost. I will say that the only times I really used the O2 was when I was flying by myself - then I'd happily hop up into the mid-teens. But even then, it's the difference of about 10 - 12 knots and over a 3 hour flight, that ain't much. In all my TC planes I lived mostly in the 7 - 12 range of altitude.

Getting over the weather is a myth. It's a rare weather picture that being in the high teens helps. If it's at all convective, you're going around it in Boeings and if it's not, it's just a few bumps that I'm probably going to fly through with minor deviations rather than climb up.
 
Rneuwirth said:
More likely, depending on the economy would be a Bonanza, 182 or 210/206.
Click to expand...
I flew both a 210 and various 206s with turbos for mapping companies. I don't remember any particular issues with engine life. I've had a couple turbos go out but that was over a span of many years. I think that if you fly the airplane yourself you can be careful enough. It's not like you're buying it to be part of a rental fleet with many different pilots.
 
As far as engine management, it's generally LESS complex than with a normally aspirated engine - the leaning process is greatly simplified.

My typical leaning profile in a Turbo Arrow (TSIO 360 engine) is:

1. Take off - full rich.

2. Climb out - don't touch it

3. Cruise - lean to a specific EGT.

4. Decent - don't touch it.

5. Landing - don't touch it.

And it's the same procedure regardless of the density altitude you're taking off from. Taking off from a high altitude airport like KTVL on a hot day, I'll be leaning for best power in the runup on the ground for takeoff in a N/A airplane. In the Turbo Arrow, I'll go from a ground lean condition to full rich on the takeoff roll at the same time I'm advancing the throttle. And if you happen to have an automatic wastegate, you've even removed the requirement to adjust the throttle for elevation.

But I second that the advantage that the turbo gives is the ability to run efficiently over long distances. It does NOT give you the ability to attain high altitude mountain MEA's in IMC unless you're set up with de icing.
 
Rneuwirth said:
My question relates to the real world improvement in weather avoidance. If the majority of flights are to be east of the Rockies, but (hopefully) throughout the year, does the addition of 5 or 6000 feet MSL truly help enough to allow more comfortable or safer flights, making the additional cost a reasonable investment?
Click to expand...
With those qualifications, not in my experience.
 
Living in Wyoming, I'd go turbo. Even though I have been a proponent of NA planes and operated one for some time in Colorado, a turbo while not essential is really, really nice to have. Just learn the details of operating one, and be prepared for a little more MX dollars, and you'll be fine.

Amelias post makes me want to sell my Tiger and get a 231.
 
The major bummer with owning a turbocharged airplane is that it isn't eligible to compete in the Air Race Classic. We coulda done it in a day in the Mooney! (I exaggerate, and last summer's joy was definitely in the journey, close to the ground, with scenery right there, instead of far below in the blue-tinged mist.)
The other inconvenience is my difficulty in finding (built-in tank) O2 refills at a reasonable price close to my back-of-beyond home.

That said, if I lived in Wyoming, I'd sure be pleased to have the option for 'higher.' If I intended to fly as far from there as Chicago, I'd definitely appreciate the 'faster.' Ice? Ugh. There are definitely times when it's better to stay home and watch it sleet.
 
Rneuwirth said:
Cost realistically less of an issue than complexity. I've been told that anything less than near perfect engine management can really cause reliability issues.
Click to expand...

Not true. Common sense engine management will do just fine. There are lots of turboed airplanes out there, and I question that each and every pilot is an engine management expert.

We are told by aviation physiologists that O2 is nice to have (not required by law) at 10,000 in the daytime and 5000 at night. I'll guarantee you that you will feel better and make better decisions when using supplemental oxygen. Bottom line: Get a turboed bird with an oxygen system; portable tank is second choice.

Bob Gardner
 
Amelia said:
I have owned a turbo Mooney (Mooney 231) for many years, and even though I fly out of a field that's 20ft msl, and it's a two hour flight to the nearest hill, I love it! Hot, humid, bumpy and hazy summer day? Not at 12,000 it's not. And climbing there is as easy as if it were a standard 50* day. Eastbound from the midwest? You should see the groundspeeds at 17,000! On my way home from the Gulf coast a few months ago, a glance at the lit-up-like-Christmas radar revealed it to be nearly unflyable for most of the route. I started climbing, and at 15,000, flew very comfortably between isolated buildups, rather than the very wet and uncomfortable thundery ride 10,000 feet below me. I was out west over Alberta a few years back, IFR, on top at maybe 13,000 feet. Controller told me he had a higher MEA and traffic, wondered if I could possibly accept FL190. Whee! Why, soitenly. I dug out the old O2 masks to replace the nasal canulas, and headed on up at a comfortable 700 fpm. The view of the Rockies from there was breathtaking. Leaned to 10gph, 187 knots across the ground, it was almost cheaper than staying home. Yes, I like my turbo Mooney very much, even though I didn't set out to buy one-- this is what there was a 1/4 share in available there and then. Would I buy one again, even though I'm usually happy enough at 8000? I think so... I've become very spoiled. It's just so capable of a nice climb when that's going to result in a smoother, faster ride.
And, touch wood, I haven't found the maintenance to be much more expensive than a comparable normally-aspirated Mooney... I did replace the turbocharger once, many years ago. The last engine went nearly 200 hours past TBO before it just felt tired, began to use more oil, and I replaced it more for my peace of mind than necessity.
Click to expand...

Good description of why I love my turbo.

One other advantage - if you file high enough, you can sometimes get above TEC/Tracon routings, meaning you're talking to Center much more of the time. This may or may not work to your benefit (if you go over JFK, you're going low, regardless), but on some other routes you may get direct. Even reduces the risk (minimizes the time you're out of glide range to shore) should you choose to accept the MANTA shark route from NJ to Long Island.
 
I wish I had it, and I were buying today, I'd probably go turbo. The long trip thing seals it.
 
Or mine either. While based in Kansas City I owned a normally-aspirated 210 for 7 years and several thousand hours followed by a T-210 for 19 years and many more thousand hours. I traveled the same geographic area for all 26 years and found the trip times to be almost identical.

The T was FIKI, so I could comfortably penetrate most of the winter icing conditions, but the rate of climb with the turbo wasn't significantly different than the non-turbo cousin. I hated to wear the O2 canula, and could could count most of my trips above 12k' on fingers and toes, even when climbing to FL170 might have saved a few minutes in trip time. The N/A airplanes are typically faster below 10k' anyway, so block times for most trips is virtually identical.

Insofar as convective WX is concerned, the ability to cruise in the teens simply puts the airplane in the heart of most of the weather. My impression is that the improvement in weather tools (skew-T's etc) is a much more important factor than a turbo insofar as go/no-go decisions are concerned.

Hey Amelia, how come the turbo lovers only talk about groundspeed on downwind legs?

PS: Other options exist for increasing performance without a turbo. My C-180 has a 275hp engine rather than the stock 230hp variant, and Wells (on red board) has replaced the TSIO-520 in his T-210 with an O-550.
Ron Levy said:
With those qualifications, not in my experience.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Turbo the Bo,

I flew a NA BE-36 (FIKI) for 1000 hrs and a Turbo BE-36 for about 1300 hours (also FIKI) and the difference in the climb,speed,range, and LOAD increase was well worth it.
Overhaul price diff was about 5.8k, cylinders are what they are but if you go ECI and take good care of them you can go to TBO with these engines, but I would be "prepared" to top at 1200 hours or so for disclaimers sake.. I always ran LOP with the Tornado Alley System II and made damn sure to stage cool on the way down. We had a Gross weight increase up to 4000 and I regularly did things in that turbo that I would have though twice about in the NA model.....you will love it...and BTW get the tip tanks and TKS if you can...you will have a serious IFR machine





On the Turbo, I did have a cylinder replaced about 500 hours from TBO...a month later that "new" cylinder's piston disintegrated and ruined the engine...luckily ECI chipped in for a very nice portion of the overhaul for the IO-550B4
 

Attachments

  • Bonanza_N3081W_003.jpg
    Bonanza_N3081W_003.jpg
    811.9 KB · Views: 9
Last edited:
wabower said:
PS: Other options exist for increasing performance without a turbo. My C-180 has a 275hp engine rather than the stock 230hp variant, and Wells (on red board) has replaced the TSIO-520 in his T-210 with an O-550.
Click to expand...

I'm on this board, too! Actually, I bought the 210N in which the TSIO-520 had already been replaced with the IO-550L (300HP continuous). When I was looking at planes, I had the same question as you. I live in NC and have never flown further west than TX. My mechanic felt that the non-turbo would probably prove to be simpler/less expensive. The plane does all I need it to do. I have built in O2, but have never even used it.

There was a recent fly-off between a T210 and NA IO-550 210 by two members of the CPA board, and they found that the IO-550 outperformed the turbo up to 9,000 or so.

I have the benefits of some items that came from the factory with the T210 (radar, FIKI) but with the simpler maintenance (and larger displacement, in my case) of the normally-aspirated engine.

Wells
 
You're right, Wayne. On the upwind legs, it's like the old joke: ( Joe, from Brooklyn, goes to Marseilles. While there, he visits one of the famous bordellos. Back in NY, he's regaling his friends at the bar...he told 'em about the red-flocked wallpaper and chandeliers, the girls and their fishnet stockings, the music, the dance, the cuddling, and then he resumed drinking his beer. "Well? they demanded. "Then what? After that?" Joe shrugged. "After that, it was the same as in Brooklyn.") So. Headed into the wind, I have the same choices my non-turbo friends do, the same as in Brooklyn. The difference is while I fly lower when the winds are too strong to be economical up high, if the winds are light or favorable, I have 24,000 vertical feet in which to play.

If all it takes is more horsepower to be almost as good as a turbo, at least under say, 12,000 feet, and you don't mind feeding that many ponies, wonderful. That would be a great way to go.
 
As for getting up over the weather, there have been a few times where I got stuck somewhere, because there was obviously no hole big enough for a Mooney to squeak through, because on the other side of that monster cold front lay freezing rain and ice, or because the muck's so widespread there's not a legal alternate within 400 miles. But there have been enough times that I've been able to climb over the low and middle-level rain clouds, to see where I was going, able to give the big uglies wide berth, instead of blundering into imbedded thunderstorms down in the crud at 7000, that I was pleased to have the altitude choices to do that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top