Turbo vs non-turbo

[N201MKTurbo]

I have some time maintaining and flying an '80 231.

 

The mixture distribution on the Lycoming is much better then the Continental TSIO360.

[Amelia]

Turbos have some lovely advantages, even here in flat country. climbing out through summer cumuli and 95 degree haze to smooth and cool on top, say, 12,000, is really quite nice. Headed home from favorite westerly destinations, it is usually a matter of zooming up to 15 or higher, handing out the nose hoses, and saying TYVM for the 250+KT groundspeeds.I usually figure on 10-12 gph. I am worth it!

[ghovey]

Turbos, pressurized, turboprop or jet engine-even better. It is ALL about the money.

[AndyFromCB]

I know this will start a fire storm but I did a unscientific review of cylinder replacement time on Acclaims and Ovations a while back. Average life was about 1000 hours for the NA version and 400-500 hours for the turbo ones. I found the same on my B36. We tried everything but 500 hours was all I could get out of the cylinders on our 540. You can blame it on ham fisted pilots but the data suggests we are all ham fisted pilots. Everyone has a story about a turbo model that lasted 4000 tbo with original cylinders. But I didn't see that in my world and neither did most Acclaims in the market over the last couple of years. the 550g in an ovation is a sweet set-up and is normally aspirated. I would have no concerns over the rockies and would prefer it over a turbo model. It may be different comparing a J to a K. But Comparing a K to an Ovation, I would take the ovation every time. I don't mean to insult any turbo birds. 

 

http://mooneyspace.com/topic/8968-movin-on-up/

 

Well, they are continental cylinders. The lycoming cylinders on the Bravo seem to now last forever. My Bravo has about 3700 hours on it, two overhauls due to camshaft issues and the cylinders looked so good at the last overhaul, that I could have kept them as is but decided to spring for a full valve job, new pistons and rings to save myself $1800 a pop for cylinders (1AMU to overhaul vs 2.8AMU for new). Now, granted, the airplane always gets flown at 75% (30in 2400rpm), and, take this, about 50 to 100ROP...That gives me about 195knots at FL180 at 18.5 gph. Or I can put around at 155 down low all day long for 12.5 gph or 165 up higher on the same fuel flow.

 

Turbo wise, the only thing that needed replacing at overhaul was wastegate. The original exhaust system lasted close to 3000 hours, it was replaced about 700 hours ago according to logbooks. Two turbo overhauls during the 3700 hours. So no bad at all. Trying to get 220knots out of a Bravo, or 240knots out of a Acclaim is what kills the cylinders. Bravo is a 200knot bird and Acclaim is a 220knot bird if you want to make TBO.

 

Buy a Bravo ;-)

[ghovey]

Your original post said you were flying West for 900 miles regularly. Two to three times a year I fly from Southern California to CT/MA by way of Nashville. 2/3 of the time there are bad headwinds coming west and I fly down on te deck just above the minimum section altitudes to avoid antennas and such. Going east I climb to a minimum of 13.5-17.5 (a couple of times I have had to stay at 9.5 because of bad wind). Normally aspirated 310 hp, never have had a problem over the Rockies or the Sierras. Take your time and climb high. But if you are flying at night, or in IMC regularly, get the engine that makes you feel the mst comfortable.

[aviatoreb]

Why is this turboprop different than the others?  Cruise at 18gph?  That sounds pretty good.  Hang that thing on the end of an M20.  Everyone has been saying that small turbines are fundamentally a bad idea and the physics is against them.  So please educate me - what is this engine doing that makes it seem reasonable?

 

Heck they are trying to put it on the front of a Vans10.  Makes experimental look very attractive.  Leaping ahead in the avionics for some time, but also in the engines?

 

http://turbinesolutiongroup.com/tsg_RV10_kit.htm

http://turbinesolutiongroup.com/tsg_TP100.htm

[carusoam]

Non-certified jet...

@241hp, it is too small for the Long Body(310 hp). Too unfun for the Missile crowd (300hp).

FF is similar, but higher, than the IO550.

First flight was in Czech Republic, last August.

Was there a price with that?

I didn't see any inspection intervals or overhaul data.

I would guess that it isn't finished yet...

If it had 350 shp and reversible pitch prop, I could fly at redline speeds and back into my hangar!

Sounds enticing either way.

Best regards,

-a-

[aviatoreb]

Non-certified jet...

@241hp, it is too small for the Long Body(310 hp). Too unfun for the Missile crowd (300hp).

FF is similar, but higher, than the IO550.

First flight was in Czech Republic, last August.

Was there a price with that?

I didn't see any inspection intervals or overhaul data.

I would guess that it isn't finished yet...

If it had 350 shp and reversible pitch prop, I could fly at redline speeds and back into my hangar!

Sounds enticing either way.

Best regards,

-a-

 

Yes, true - but folks have been saying essentially that turboprop engines are just too big and can't be downsized efficiently for a M20 - and here is one that is too small!  It suggests that a just right sized one could be built.

[carusoam]

I'm starting to feel lucky...

Scaling it to 350hp is step 1.

Initial price and inspection and rebuild costs will be step 2.

If I had to go diesel, I would keep an eye on this subject...

My current engine should last 20 years. I'm good for now...

Best regards,

-a-