Turbo vs non-turbo

[Mark89114]

I am beginning the consideration of buying a Mooney, 231 or 252. I would need to go 900 miles westbound, so range will be tight, but if I have to stop, I have to stop. My concern is over turbo operation, currently a c-152 owner, but have 3500+ turbine time, so what I am saying is I know nothing about piston engine operation, not really nothing, but I can learn, but would rather not spend thousands learning. Obviously turbos are fussier, but are they really that fussy? How much additional expense am I going to occur over the long run if 15% of my trips are just short 30 minute trips.

Any i advice or links would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Mark

[DonMuncy]

Yes turbos are a little fussy. But after 10 hours, you won't notice.

[Dave Marten]

Mark,

 

Handling the turbo is no big deal. With over 3500+ hrs of turbine time you surely understand how to operate an aircraft and its systems. Turbos are not fussy, you set a manifold pressure/rpm combo and lean it out. Just have an extra parameter or two to monitor (TIT, etc-use an engine monitor) and employ a little bit of descent planning on your way back down from the high teens/twenties. All things you're familiar with as a turbine guy. Bottom line is while not as forgiving to pilot baffoonery as a 152, its not something to be scared of.

 

A 231/252 with long range tanks will handle 900 miles plus easy. Bring a couple gatorade bottles. I've taken mine CA-TX non-stop multiple times, however with my wife and kids on board we normally stop every 3.5 hrs, although they handled SoCal to Pueblo non-stop.

 

Expense wise, yes you'll pay more than your normally aspirated friends with respect to fuel burn and maintenance/overhaul costs (6cyl vs 4), but you'll have significantly more capability. For a short 30 min burger run figure an extra 2gph (rough pad) vs what you'd burn in a J so after 30 min you'd burn a whole extra gallon.  

[Danb]

Don, definitely agree, we do have our maintenance issues but once used to flying by our numbers, temperatures etc. ther is no major difference with approximate TLC. I have about 2500 hrs in my J models and 700 in my M. After getting accustomed to and following the POh I see no reason to get a Turbo model if it fits your missions, ask yourself eg. Do you need long range tanks etc to accomplish that?

[Danb]

Sorry about that. I see no reason for not getting a turbo if it fits your missions

[jackn]

The 231/252 makes for a wonderful long distance travelling machine, particularly if it comes with Long Range tanks & TKS. They are also sporty airplanes for having fun with the local flights. I've had mine for about 4 years now, and use it for both. The attached article gives some good pointers for what to look for. Regards.

http://www.mooneypilots.com/mapalog/mapalogarticle.html

[FoxMike]

Hard to guess what you will be doing with your airplane.  I have been operating turboed airplanes for 40 years or so.  I live in Denver and travel all over the US.  Sometimes I need the turbo sometimes it just along for the ride.  In heavy weather it usually is more than useful.  IFR in the Rockies it is hard to do without.  After you learn how to use it properly the cost is marginally more but worth it.  Some pilots never learn so they continually repair the turbo system.  If you like to push your equipment hard turbos are not for you.  

[Z W]

The TSIO-360 is a pretty easy turbo system to operate. The earlier stock 231's, that is not so much true, but almost all of them have been upgraded with intercoolers and automatic wastegates. You just set the MP where you want it, then set the fuel flow where you want it. All the power, all the time. Can't overboost, unless a component fails.

You do have to be gentle with the throttle. I use my verniers for everything but take off and go around, and avoid sudden big MP changes even for those. When getting ready for the descent, I slowly walk the throttle out about 1 inch per minute, per the POH, until it's down under 24 inches or so. Now, though, I find I fly NA planes the same way. It just feels more precise and easier on the plane. Small, smooth changes in configuration are better than big abrupt changes.

The turbo system has needed about $2k in extra maintenance in about 3 years. Rebuilt wastegate and turbo controller. Absolutely worth it, imo.

I would not fly my turbo without a 6-cylinder engine monitor. Too much going on under the hood as you climb up to FL180 and set 70% power LOP.

[FlyDave]

I just uploaded an article from MAPA magazine comparing flight profiles from the J to the K.

You can find it here:

 

http://mooneyspace.com/files/file/29-j-vs-k-article/

 

I hope this sheds some light on your decision.

[Dave Marten]

  Mike Busch: The Ten Biggest Lies About Piston Aircraft Engines

 

Lie #2: Turbocharged engines are troublesome, inefficient and costly.

 

When I learned to fly on the East Coast thirty-something years ago, turbocharging was a dirty word. Everybody said turbos were expensive, inefficient, maintenance-intensive, and problem-prone; it shortens TBO and increases operating cost drastically, and makes no sense unless you live in the mountains. Or so everybody said.

Well, everybody was wrong. I've owned, operated and maintained a turbocharged twin Cessna for the past eleven years. It's proven to be the most reliable airplane I've ever owned: reliable, efficient, and almost completely trouble-free. Both engines made it to 500 hours past TBO without ever having a cylinder off, and when they were finally majored, they turned out to be in great shape.

 

Most of the anti-turbocharging arguments you hear are bunk. For example, take the claim that turbocharged engines are inefficient. Now, it's true that most turbocharged engines have a lower compression ratio than their normally-aspirated counterparts (typically 6.5-to-1 vs. 7.5-to-1), and that the turbo will burn a bit more fuel at any given power setting. But specific fuel consumption is only part of the story. The other part is that airframes are much more efficient up at the higher altitudes that turbocharging allows.

 

For instance, by climbing from 6,000' to 12,000' and throttling back from 75% to 65% power, my Turbo 310 can fly 5 knots faster than a normally-aspirated 310, and do it at lower fuel flow. If I'm willing to use oxygen and climb to FL200, I can beat the non-turboed 310 by 25 knots with no fuel flow penalty. The normally-aspirated airplane is more efficient than the turbo only if you force both airplanes to fly at the same low altitude, and that's not a meaningful comparison.

How about the claim that turbocharged engines are much more expensive to operate and maintain? It's true that turbos are more vulnerable to abuse in the hands of a ham-fisted pilot. If your airplane is used for training or rental use and flown by lots of pilots, you probably don't want a turbo. But barring such abuse, my worst-case analysis indicates that a 300 hp turbocharged engine should cost no more than $10/hour more to operate than its normally-aspirated sibling. When you consider that the sort of aircraft that use such engines — Bonanzas, Centurions, Saratogas, etc. — typically cost $100 to $150/hour to fly, you can see that the difference is chump change

[ArtVandelay]

Dave. etc

I wouldn't use cost/hour when comparing turbos vs non-turbos, I would use cost/mile, since the turbo will give you a speed advantage (assuming you fly at high altitudes and if you have a turbo you should), seems this is a more fair way to do a comparison.

[ArtVandelay]

I just uploaded an article from MAPA magazine comparing flight profiles from the J to the K.

You can find it here:

 

http://mooneyspace.com/files/file/29-j-vs-k-article/

 

I hope this sheds some light on your decision.

That link didn't work for me

[Skybrd]

I have a 201 J model and at times would like to have it turbocharged. I don't know why the 201's don't have the option. Maybe it's due to the tight cowling. I know of an older E model with a turbo. My Dad's former Twin Comanche had a Rajay turbo and worked well for him.

[FlyDave]

That link didn't work for me

Look in the "Performance Data" section of "Downloads".

[N201MKTurbo]

I owned an m20F for 19 years and flew it 4000 hours. Now I have a turbo 201 which I have had for 10 years and about 1000 hours.

There was nowhere I couldn't go in my F, but I'd miss my turbo if I didn't have it.

[Jsavage3]

Turbos are great, especially if you live in the mountains, but don't forget that you'll be sucking on O2 if you go up where a turbo wants to be.  I weighed this option seriously (201 to a 252) several months ago and decided that for the kind of flying I do in the Mooney, the J is the best bang for the buck for me.  

 

I like to keep my legs limited to 3 hours or so in an effort to keep Mama & kids "happy" and actually desiring to go flying with me again.  Previously, with no O2, hypoxic headaches limited us to getting one good 3-hour leg in per day -- but now, with a 4-place portable O2 setup, I cruise at 10-12k (higher if the tailwinds are strong) for 3 hours (sipping O2 as needed to keep our blood-oxygen levels happy...we call it 'taking a hit of O2'), stop for lunch/stretch the legs/fuel if needed/etc, then off we go for another 3-hour leg with my family smiling!  The O2 has essentially doubled my effective range for a particular day...800-1000nm in a day is now easily attainable and my whole family stays happy doing it.

 

The Lycoming 360 is bulletproof and very easy to operate.  I always see 157-159 KTAS, running 60-65% power, 9.3-to-9.6 GPH at peak EGT (first to peak), 940# useful, etc...

 

I live in Ohio, but if I lived in/near the Rockies, then I'd have a turbo...

[PMcClure]

I left a turbo b36 for a ovation 2. I know there are reasons for a turbo, but I don't miss it. The ovation is every bit as capable in service and speed but far more efficient and less expensive than the b36. Not exactly apples to apples. The Ovation has a ceiling of 25k and I can climb at 1000 fpm right up to 10,000 and keep on climbing. 900 miles is doable.

[WardHolbrook]

When it comes to turbo or not, I believe it's simply a matter of whether or not the following two items are a frequent issue or concern in your day-to-day flying:
1. High altitude climb and cruise performance
2. High density altitude takeoff performance

If either one or both of these are frequent considerations then turbocharging makes sense. However, if you’re a flatlander and spend most of your time down low, you'll likely have to pay a speed penalty for the turbo and seldom use it to its full potential so why bother?.

 

I've owned a C421 and flew and managed several others plus a P210 and a couple C340s. We'd have the very rare turbo issue, but nothing that would even remotely cause concern about busting the budget. Just fly them like they're supposed to be flown and turbos will add little, if anything, to your maintenance budget. That's not to say they won't cost you anything, but they typically aren't a source of expensive maintenance problems.

[David Mazer]

Please consider looking at my Rocket, which is for sale on this site (1986 M20K Rocket).  Thank you.

[M20S Driver]

I looked into the question of turbo vs NA for a while last year before I bought my 280 HP Eagle last December. My flying is mostly below 12500 feet and my high DA take offs (Truckee-KTRK) has a personal limit of 8500 feet. I went for NA for simplicity of the flight operation and maintenance.

My 280HP Eagle gives me 800 feet per minute at a DA of 8500 feet with four soles onboard and 50 gal gas (3200lbs). I would consider a upgrading to a 310HP STC before looking at a turbo.

Masoud

[aaronk25]

Maybe more entertaining than useful but my 2000 jetta turbo diesel has 300k miles and the turbo hasn't cost one dollar in extra maintenance. In fact it's even turned up to 18lbs of boost instead of 11lbs. Not sure what mp that equates to but it's been at that since 60k miles. When driving over the Rockies it's great to be able to make full rated power something I wish my 201 would do.

My vote is for the turbo. I hope after this part 23 non-commercial standard takes place I will be able to use the tornado alley turbo "cardinal" system. I talked with John Paul about it last week when he so kindly agreed to send me 2 new GAMI injectors to replace my leaky ones. Good guy. Good company.

Aaron

Aaron

[PMcClure]

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/

[Piloto]

Mark it depends on your mission profile. As an example: if you are flying between Florida and the Bahamas you do not need a turbo or de-icing. However if you are going to be crossing the Sierra Nevada or the Andes mountains a turbo is a must. Planes with no turbo will never have turbo problems thus they tend to be more reliable

 

I have the same opinion as PMcClure. The turbo owners twins/singles that I have met they indicated early cylinder replacement and turbo overhauls at 1000hrs. Unlike the IO-360 on the M20J were the average cylinder replacement is at TBO. Turbo engines will not run as lean as non-turbo thus they consume more fuel.

 

On Flyaware I noticed that most piston turbos are flown below 12,000 feet.

 

José 

[N201MKTurbo]

Jose said:

Turbo engines will not run as lean as non-turbo thus they consume more fuel.

 

 

Mine will. I can run it 100 deg LOP before it starts to get rough. I get pretty close to the TIT limit doing that, but the cylinders are stone cold about 300 deg. #2 runs 280. That is at 29in and 2300. This is at 8 GPH getting about 21 MPG!

[carusoam]

There must be something in there for TN vs TC...and long runners on the TN (TNIO550(g))....

Jose?

Best regards,

-a-