Turbo or not

[chrisk]

Just an observation that you may want to look. Go to Flightaware.com and search for turbo Mooneys (M20T) or turbo Cirrus (SR22) and try to find how many are flying above 12,000ft. You may find one or two. The overwhelming majority are below 10,000ft. No doubt that turbo has its advantages but I do not see turbo owners taking advantage of it.

José

You are right in your observation, but it doesn't mean owners are not taking advantage of their turbos. Generally the turbo is only useful on 200+ mile trips, and only when you can catch a good tail wind. Try to narrow your search to longer east bound flights. You might find more owners are taking advantage of their turbo. With that said, it adds more capability to your plane. Kind of like long range tanks, TKS, etc. You might not use them a lot, but they are wonderful for the right circumstances.

Of course if you are going to fly high, you need to add Oxygen to your plane. This is another reason lots of folks don't go high.

[kmyfm20s]

The myth about tail winds.

http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/proficiency/weather-flying/the-myth-almost-of-tailwinds.html#.VDC6s91HarU

[FlyDave]

You are right in your observation, but it doesn't mean owners are not taking advantage of their turbos.  Generally the turbo is only useful on 200+ mile trips, and only when you can catch a good tail wind.  Try to narrow your search to longer east bound flights.  You might find more owners are taking advantage of their turbo.  With that said, it adds more capability to your plane.  Kind of like long range tanks, TKS, etc.  You might not use them a lot, but they wonderful for the right circumstances. 

 

Of course if you are going to fly high, you need to add Oxygen Oxygen.jpg  to your plane. This is another reason lots of folks don't go high. 

I fly my Bravo between 15-18k' on any flight over 200 NM depending on winds. I get better TAS the higher I fly - and more so in the summer with warmer temps and higher DA's.

Chris - this looks exactly like the setup I have. Did you get that red cart from Harbor Freight?

[WardHolbrook]

There's more reasons to fly high than just tailwinds. This is why you need to factor in things like comfort, winds, leg length, etc, etc, etc. Some legs it makes sense to go high, other legs it doesn't, that's nothing new. The thing is, there are a lot of guys with turbos who probably have no business up in the high teens and low flight levels - they are simply not prepared for the challenges that high altitude introduces into the equation. (There's all of that pesky training that isn't really mandated by the regs, but necessary none the less.)

 

Those free and low-cost computerized flight planning programs that factor in stuff like time to climb, cruise IAS, winds aloft, and descent times and give you accurate enroute times and fuel burns for multiple altitudes makes the most efficient/economical altitude selection pretty much a no-brainer. If you're going to go the non-pressurized turbo route and play around up high, you're probably going to want to get some O2 refill equipment for the hangar. If you're only flying the occasional long trip, then it's probably not going to be worth the hassle. If you use your Mooney for what it was designed to do on a regular basis then it probably is.

[FlyDave]

I have the large 115 CF o2 bottle. o2 usage on our trip from CA - NY - CA with 2 people using it was ~900 lbs. of oxygen going east at an average altitude of FL180 and ~ 1,000 lbs. going west at an average altitude of 17,000' (I know these altitudes don't correspond to the correct cardinal altitudes but they are averages).

[M016576]

Thanks everyone for the usual excellent input. It sounds like the turbo is the better way to go to get out of the stuff but can anyone tell me what the typical tops are when it's raining? I won't be going if there is a storm but just the normal Seattle and Portland steady rain. When I fly commercial they seem to be in the 10k plus range. My typical route will be KUAO to KLMT, with excursions to KBFI, and further north in Washington (San Juan Islands). As noted ice is the real issue and I don't have the desire to stay in the clouds the entire flight. If the tops are so high I will be in potential ice for a long time I should probably get a J, stay low, and not go.

I live in Klamath Falls (LMT for the unfamiliar). Feel free to PM me if you have any questions about K-Falls or the airport.

I had a J here for three years. It's a great airplane for this area and is exceptionally well suited for the altitudes you fly at here VFR... But... If you fly at all IFR in the winter, expect icing.

I sold my J last year and bought a missile with TKS- primarily due to the potential to run into icing conditions. And the ice around here can be very nasty. I'm a pilot by trade (twin engine jets) and fly hard ifr around here out of necessity in the wintertime- believe me- the icing you see here is real, comes on fast, and no amount of turbo charging tends to get you over the top- the systems tend to run up above the 30's... Not like the east (near Virginia), or the south, where I tended to see low stable masses that you could "punch through" and cruise on top in VMC. If dispatch ability is a concern, you might consider a de-iced Baron for around here (heresy on this board, I know).

[Piloto]

 Check this out on FlightAware.com. A non turbo Ovation N192JK at FL230 eastbound from Las Vegas to Pittsburgh, PA. Wonder what his manifold pressure and fuel flow readings are.

 

José

[chrisk]

I fly my Bravo between 15-18k' on any flight over 200 NM depending on winds. I get better TAS the higher I fly - and more so in the summer with warmer temps and higher DA's.

Chris - this looks exactly like the setup I have. Did you get that red cart from Harbor Freight?

yes, the cart is from Harbor Freight. I need to find some solid tires for it.

[Steve Dawson]

 Check this out on FlightAware.com. A non turbo Ovation N192JK at FL230 eastbound from Las Vegas to Pittsburgh, PA. Wonder what his manifold pressure and fuel flow readings are.

 

José

That's taking advantage of tailwinds!

[chrisk]

 

Those free and low-cost computerized flight planning programs that factor in stuff like time to climb, cruise IAS, winds aloft, and descent times and give you accurate enroute times and fuel burns for multiple altitudes makes the most efficient/economical altitude selection pretty much a no-brainer. If you're going to go the non-pressurized turbo route and play around up high, you're probably going to want to get some O2 refill equipment for the hangar. If you're only flying the occasional long trip, then it's probably not going to be worth the hassle. If you use your Mooney for what it was designed to do on a regular basis then it probably is.

I typically use the AOPA flight planner. It does a good job with things like wind correction angles, ground speed, and conservative fuel consumption. However it doesn't do a good job in a few areas. It doesn't adjust for true airspeed as you go higher. And if you fly direct, it only looks at the end points for winds. What flight planners fix these problems? I'd like to use one that is a little better.

[WardHolbrook]

I typically use the AOPA flight planner. It does a good job with things like wind correction angles, ground speed, and conservative fuel consumption. However it doesn't do a good job in a few areas. It doesn't adjust for true airspeed as you go higher. And if you fly direct, it only looks at the end points for winds. What flight planners fix these problems? I'd like to use one that is a little better.

I use fltplan.com. It has its warts, but it's free and provides "one stop shopping". It's pretty much the defacto standard in computerized flight planning in the corporate jet world. It does a good job. 

[WardHolbrook]

I live in Klamath Falls (LMT for the unfamiliar). Feel free to PM me if you have any questions about K-Falls or the airport.

I had a J here for three years. It's a great airplane for this area and is exceptionally well suited for the altitudes you fly at here VFR... But... If you fly at all IFR in the winter, expect icing.

I sold my J last year and bought a missile with TKS- primarily due to the potential to run into icing conditions. And the ice around here can be very nasty. I'm a pilot by trade (twin engine jets) and fly hard ifr around here out of necessity in the wintertime- believe me- the icing you see here is real, comes on fast, and no amount of turbo charging tends to get you over the top- the systems tend to run up above the 30's... Not like the east (near Virginia), or the south, where I tended to see low stable masses that you could "punch through" and cruise on top in VMC. If dispatch ability is a concern, you might consider a de-iced Baron for around here (heresy on this board, I know).

I flew for Jeld-Wen for nearly 15 years and lived in "Kalamity Falls" for 8 years. Even that de-iced Baron isn't going to be able to "punch through" the crap on the days that a Mooney couldn't do it - they don't perform any better than a turbo Mooney. Jeld-Wen flew turboprop twins (Cheyenne and King Air) around the area for decades and had little difficulty. Those turboprops do not perform that much better than an Acclaim, Bravo or one of the big-bore Continental conversions. It's all about having the proper tools, training, experience and the good judgement to know when you can and when you shouldn't.  

[aviatoreb]

 Check this out on FlightAware.com. A non turbo Ovation N192JK at FL230 eastbound from Las Vegas to Pittsburgh, PA. Wonder what his manifold pressure and fuel flow readings are.

 

José

 

Wow - very cool. 9 hours.  I see that just last week he did another flight of 7:49.  Road warrior.

 

I do see it takes about an hour to do his climb to altitude.  The big bore turbo Mooney's will do that in a quarter of that time.  But then again my airplane can't go for 9 hours.

[aviatoreb]

Just an observation that you may want to look. Go to Flightaware.com and search for turbo Mooneys (M20T) or turbo Cirrus (SR22) and try to find how many are flying above 12,000ft. You may find  one or two. The overwhelming majority are below 10,000ft. No doubt that turbo has its advantages but I do not see turbo owners taking advantage of it.

 

José

 

That was not a relevant question for me when I was buying.  I bought an airplane with a no FIKI TKS since I figure that if I screw up and end up in ice then a turbo is the thing to get me up and out quickly.  I did not want to find myself in ice and too anemic to climb.

 

But I do go to the mid teens quite often.  I like 13 over 11 in fact simply because no one seems to want to fly at 13.  And I can get up there awfully quickly so I don't hesitate to go to 13 even for a relatively short flight.  Also other things cross my mind when I climb to 13 or 15 etc when going a short flight like 1 hour such as when I go from Potsdam to Boston or Hartford or NYC, which is I cross the adirondacks - in the winter you do not want to off field land in the adirondacks - too cold.  With lots of altitude I'm hoping to have choices to make a runway.  Knock on wood, but a turbo and a full feathering prop is the poor mans twin - I cross the great lakes direct at 17 or 19 since I am in gliding range of land the whole time, and that saves lots of time and fuel from not going around.  Extra speed is great but there are other considerations too which mostly relate to flexibility and choices.

[M016576]

That was not a relevant question for me when I was buying. I bought an airplane with a no FIKI TKS since I figure that if I screw up and end up in ice then a turbo is the thing to get me up and out quickly. I did not want to find myself in ice and too anemic to climb.

But I do go to the mid teens quite often. I like 13 over 11 in fact simply because no one seems to want to fly at 13. And I can get up there awfully quickly so I don't hesitate to go to 13 even for a relatively short flight. Also other things cross my mind when I climb to 13 or 15 etc when going a short flight like 1 hour such as when I go from Potsdam to Boston or Hartford or NYC, which is I cross the adirondacks - in the winter you do not want to off field land in the adirondacks - too cold. With lots of altitude I'm hoping to have choices to make a runway. Knock on wood, but a turbo and a full feathering prop is the poor mans twin - I cross the great lakes direct at 17 or 19 since I am in gliding range of land the whole time, and that saves lots of time and fuel from not going around. Extra speed is great but there are other considerations too which mostly relate to flexibility and choices.

My biggest gripe / beef about flying in the teens to FL's isn't the turbo... It's the O2. Mainly because my kids are too young to wear the masks.

Different debate, I know....

Ward- you're certainly right about performance- it's the redundancy that the Baron "buys" you IMO that makes it a safer choice for that kind of flying. Then again, that second engine is probably just taking you to the crash site...

Jeld-Wen still has their aviation division here... But I don't know for how much longer. Seems like town is in a bit of a tail slide since our commercial air service (Skywest) pulled out back in June.

[WardHolbrook]

My biggest gripe / beef about flying in the teens to FL's isn't the turbo... It's the O2. Mainly because my kids are too young to wear the masks.

Different debate, I know....

Ward- you're certainly right about performance- it's the redundancy that the Baron "buys" you IMO that makes it a safer choice for that kind of flying. Then again, that second engine is probably just taking you to the crash site...

Jeld-Wen still has their aviation division here... But I don't know for how much longer. Seems like town is in a bit of a tail slide since our commercial air service (Skywest) pulled out back in June.

They were in a tail slide since before then. I left 11 years ago and haven't looked back. I do miss my K-Falls friends though. I hesitate to bring up my feelings on singles vs twins because I always end up getting hate mail. I would love to own a Mooney Acclaim S, but I'd NEVER fly one (or any other single) at night or in LIFR conditions. It's got to be during the day and there's got to be a VFR ceiling - I'll save the IFR stuff for enroute. I know, I know, the statistics don't bear it out, but my personal experience does.  

[aviatoreb]

My biggest gripe / beef about flying in the teens to FL's isn't the turbo... It's the O2. Mainly because my kids are too young to wear the masks.

Different debate, I know....

Ward- you're certainly right about performance- it's the redundancy that the Baron "buys" you IMO that makes it a safer choice for that kind of flying. Then again, that second engine is probably just taking you to the crash site...

Jeld-Wen still has their aviation division here... But I don't know for how much longer. Seems like town is in a bit of a tail slide since our commercial air service (Skywest) pulled out back in June.

 

Absolutely I agree small children and O2 don't mix.  In fact only some passengers mix with O2.  In my family everyone is big enough to wear O2, but my 13 year old and 16 year old are very tepid on the idea and so I need to stay low with them.  But they are tepid on flying in general, so I do not fly very many times per year with them.  My 17 year old loves flying if it means taking him fishing in far away and exotic places - so he is perfectly happy wearing a mask (but hates wearing a cannula because he says its embarrassing - so he wears a mask even if I am wearing a cannula at 14 or 16 k or thereabouts) and I go high with him all the time.  My wife is also tepid on flying but does it when its convenient but she has occasionally worn cannula or mask when I explained to her that we can stay at 10k and bounce around like crazy in a cloud or fly in beautiful sunshine and smooth air at 16k or 17k. Never been higher than that with her.  She took to it just fine.

 

And half my flying is solo.  Because folks don't like wearing O2 - I go to 13k - and up - to avoid the masses which is worth something in the east. The teens are too high for the O2 adverse, and too low for the jets.

[Awful_Charlie]

Just an observation that you may want to look. Go to Flightaware.com and search for turbo Mooneys (M20T) or turbo Cirrus (SR22) and try to find how many are flying above 12,000ft. You may find  one or two. The overwhelming majority are below 10,000ft. No doubt that turbo has its advantages but I do not see turbo owners taking advantage of it.

 

José

 

I see a great number of 4x4's out there that have never seen anything other than a tarmac road too!

[WardHolbrook]

Ward- you're certainly right about performance- it's the redundancy that the Baron "buys" you IMO that makes it a safer choice for that kind of flying. Then again, that second engine is probably just taking you to the crash site...

 

As for that second engine only being good for taking you to the scene on the crash...

 

I don't want this to turn into a single vs twin debate, but I've said this before - There are caveats associated with the operation of any aircraft - regardless of the number or type of powerplant(s). The big caveat when it comes to singles is when the engine quits on you, you will be landing shortly. Hopefully, as a result of dumb luck or good judgment, you will be VFR over survivable terrain because you're going to be up close and personal with it in very short order. You can rationalize and play the odds all you want, but if you fly long enough you will have an engine failure at some point.Period. 

 

The big caveat when it comes to flying a twin is that when that engine quits on you, you had better have made the required investment in training and have the prerequisite level of skill and proficiency to avoid turning the airplane into little more than a lawn dart. Period. A properly flown twin operated by a proficient pilot within its limitations is inherently safer than a single. If they are not operated that way, they are more dangerous. Period.

 

I'd guess that the majority of the non-professional light twin drivers and many of the "pros" would be safer in a single. It takes a lot of effort to gain the necessary proficiency and even more to maintain it. That's dang tough to when your recurrent training involves little more than a basic flight review with a CFI every couple of years and you're only flying a 50 to 100 hours a year. It also takes judgement and discipline to operate your twin in a manner that doesn't severely compromise the limited OEI performance capabilities of the typical light piston twin.

 

Just like in a single, you can play the odds all you want in your light twin, but never forget that now you've got two engines so you've got twice the likelihood of a failure in any given period of time. In a twin, it's all about proficiency, not just currency and the only way to achieve and maintain proficiency is through a structured recurrent training program. If you're going to fly a twin, you need to budget the time and money to do it right and it ain't going to be cheap.

[M016576]

They were in a tail slide since before then. I left 11 years ago and haven't looked back. I do miss my K-Falls friends though. I hesitate to bring up my feelings on singles vs twins because I always end up getting hate mail. I would love to own a Mooney Acclaim S, but I'd NEVER fly one (or any other single) at night or in LIFR conditions. It's got to be during the day and there's got to be a VFR ceiling - I'll save the IFR stuff for enroute. I know, I know, the statistics don't bear it out, but my personal experience does.

I'm with you 100%

[M016576]

Absolutely I agree small children and O2 don't mix. In fact only some passengers mix with O2. In my family everyone is big enough to wear O2, but my 13 year old and 16 year old are very tepid on the idea and so I need to stay low with them. But they are tepid on flying in general, so I do not fly very many times per year with them. My 17 year old loves flying if it means taking him fishing in far away and exotic places - so he is perfectly happy wearing a mask (but hates wearing a cannula because he says its embarrassing - so he wears a mask even if I am wearing a cannula at 14 or 16 k or thereabouts) and I go high with him all the time. My wife is also tepid on flying but does it when its convenient but she has occasionally worn cannula or mask when I explained to her that we can stay at 10k and bounce around like crazy in a cloud or fly in beautiful sunshine and smooth air at 16k or 17k. Never been higher than that with her. She took to it just fine.

And half my flying is solo. Because folks don't like wearing O2 - I go to 13k - and up - to avoid the masses which is worth something in the east. The teens are too high for the O2 adverse, and too low for the jets.

You're certaily right about the traffic... The "mask-on-o-sphere" is the perfect place for a high performance piston... 14000-17500... Gets rid of the air breathing chaff (me), jets and turbo props rarely dally down there, and you get the freedom and fuel savings of a VFR direct routing if you want it. I just wish my passengers were old enough to take advantage of it!

[Danb]

Is it time to start the 300 knot club of Mooneys or has that occurred on this site I have not found.

[aviatoreb]

Is it time to start the 300 knot club of Mooneys or has that occurred on this site I have not found.

 

Are you in the 300 club?

 

I'm not.  Ive done 283.  This winter I vow to catch a jet stream surf even if it is a gratuitous ride to no where in particular.  Just for the I did it photo of the GPS.

[orionflt]

I have managed 200 kts GS in my C, I would need a lot more tail wind to make 300.

 

Brian

[Joe Zuffoletto]

I would love to own a Mooney Acclaim S, but I'd NEVER fly one (or any other single) at night or in LIFR conditions. It's got to be during the day and there's got to be a VFR ceiling - I'll save the IFR stuff for enroute. I know, I know, the statistics don't bear it out, but my personal experience does.  

I do own an Acclaim S and I agree with you 100%, although I'm not afraid to shoot daytime approaches to minimums through stratus if I'm familiar with the area (most CA coastal airports) or if it's flat terrain (eastern CO and the Midwest).