"Turbo" paint removal

kgruber

kgruber

Final Approach
Joined
Jan 3, 2007
Messages
5,155
Location
Western Washington
Display Name
Skywag
Home Airfield
KPWT Bremerton National
About 30 years ago the FAA recommended that "Turbo" be removed from logos of turbocharged aircraft.

This was to help prevent misfueling with jet.

I am looking for the documentation and can't find it................................?
 
Piper has a SB on it. I've referenced it here on POA. Maybe a search will turn it up.
 
After a quick google search....there was an AD in 87 but it did not address removing the name "Turbo"....it changed the filler neck sizes.

AOPA did an article about it by Mike Busch.

Also, there is a nice GA News article about the subject here.
 
I don't recall FAA recommending that the "Turbo" moniker be scrubbed from existing paint jobs; just that it not be applied to new ones (closing the door after the horse is down the road, and all that). And it was closer to 40 years ago, I think.

Piper was not very subtle with the 1977 Turbo Arrow III ...

Screen Shot 2018-01-27 at 5.36.46 PM.png

"Turbo" markings also appear in Piper brochures through 1980, but IIRC they stopped putting it on new airplanes during the 1980 model run. "Turbo" labels can be seen in 1979 Cessna ads, but not 1980.

Here's the only guy who objected to the change:

Screen Shot 2018-01-27 at 5.48.00 PM.png
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
After a quick google search....there was an AD in 87 but it did not address removing the name "Turbo"....it changed the filler neck sizes.

AOPA did an article about it by Mike Busch.

Also, there is a nice GA News article about the subject here.
Click to expand...

In that article Busch states that the issue was that the word turbo was being confused with turbine. I disagree. I think it is because turbo is part of turboprop so when the fueler saw the word turbo and saw the propellers, he conflated the two into turboprop. And of course turboprops burn jet fuel. It might be a minor distinction but I believe my version as to why it happened is more correct than Busch’s.
 
SkyDog58 said:
In that article Busch states that the issue was that the word turbo was being confused with turbine. I disagree. I think it is because turbo is part of turboprop so when the fueler saw the word turbo and saw the propellers, he conflated the two into turboprop. And of course turboprops burn jet fuel. It might be a minor distinction but I believe my version as to why it happened is more correct than Busch’s.
Click to expand...

I like your version better. It evokes an image of a minimum wage airport employee walking up, seeing "Turbo" on the airplane, seeing a propeller, and thinking, "oh, a turbo propeller. A turboprop."
 
I thought the fuel truck guys used the acronym “Takes Unleaded Really Burns Oil” as a confirmation that low-lead does NOT go into that airplane because it needs kerosene.
 
dmspilot said:
I like your version better. It evokes an image of a minimum wage airport employee walking up, seeing "Turbo" on the airplane, seeing a propeller, and thinking, "oh, a turbo propeller. A turboprop."
Click to expand...
I used to annoy some friends who were J31/J41 pilots by calling their aircraft a "propstream."
 
If the line guy is that stupid, he's probably going to screw it up anyway.

Frankly I just fuel my own planes, especially amphibs, between people trying to bond their fuel trucks to my polished exhaust, or get their ladders super close to my wing (which doesn't work for in inboard tanks on a many amphibs anyways), plus with how small most GA tanks are anyways compared to a bigger planes, I just have the lineman hand me the nozzle, it's really not worth letting them mess with it.
 
Anyone old enough to work is old enough to drive, if you're old enough to drive (or much younger for most) you know cars have turbos, you also know cars don't use jet fuel.

So yes, you can train a stupid person to ACT less stupid, but the underlining stupid will still make an appearance from time to time, and that's why it's best to just fuel and handle your own plane.


One time, at a VERY good FBO I ordered fuel for the work plane, 60 a side Jet A +, the guy proceeded to fuel up the plane to 120 a side, at like 80 one wing overflowed, instead of thinking "huh, maybe this isn't right" he just filled the other to the brim too, interesting factoid, FBOs do have the ability to pump fuel out of a plane too...ask me how I know lol
 
Pilawt said:
Though “turbo” cars were not so common in 1980. So perhaps the likelihood of confusion occasioned by the “Turbo” decal has lessened over time.
Click to expand...

Also most every FBO asks, any any pilot worth his beans says it, when the turbine I always say "jet a with prist" even in the places that premix and only offer prist, same with my plane "40 gal 100LL, and I'll fuel it)
 
Last edited:
James331 said:
One time, at a VERY good FBO I ordered fuel for the work plane, 60 a side Jet A +, the guy proceeded to fuel up the plane to 120 a side, at like 80 one wing overflowed, instead of thinking "huh, maybe this isn't right" he just filled the other to the brim too, interesting factoid, FBOs do have the ability to pump fuel out of a plane too...ask me how I know lol
Click to expand...
Sounds like the same way I know that people actually exist who don't know how many gallons a "five gallon bucket" holds.
 
James331 said:
Anyone old enough to work is old enough to drive, if you're old enough to drive (or much younger for most) you know cars have turbos, you also know cars don't use jet fuel.
Click to expand...

My truck has a turbocharger and will burn JetA....:lol::lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top