Turbo Costs

[GaryP1007]

So as a follow up to my previous post...what do people believe are average maintenance costs for a turbo? Not looking for the answer of when all sh*t breaks loose.....just what is the expected additional cost?

[N201MKTurbo]

Well, nothing unless something breaks loose.

 

My turbo, which is essentially the same setup as the 231 needed an overhaul at about 1000 hours. It cost $2400.

 

The pressure controller (unique to my setup) needed repair which was $250.

 

My exhaust system melted. I managed the repair myself and it cost about $150 for parts and labor plus 10 hours of my time.

 

Mostly it just works....

[carusoam]

Similar to maintenance on an engine...

There aren't any expensive wearing parts that are expected to get changed at each annual...

But when something needs to be overhauled, the experience can be expensive.

When buying a turbo'd plane, the PPI should take some time to look at the health of the turbo. Looking for good oil flow through the bearings and blade erosion are two things that come to mind...

They can be run too hot for too long by a previous owner.

It really helps to know the owner and download the JPI data.

Like cylinders, they can be OH'd as a cost of flying highest and fastest...

Flying an N/A engine at altitude is less challenging to manage.

Best regards,

-a-

[CaptRJM]

I've have almost 1400 hours on my 231 (TSIO 360 LB) since last overhaul.  Haven't had any problems with turbocharger or Merlyn controller.  Minor leak in exhaust system that we caught at last annual, maybe it was an extra hour to fix.  I did top all 6 cylinders at 900 hours.   2 cylinders were way down and leaking from the exhaust valves and rings, just decided to do them all rather than doing 1 or 2 at a time.  Went with nickel cylinders on the recommendation of my engine shop and AP.  Compressions were still in the mid 70's at last annual.

 

I run the engine at 65% power, lean of peak.  CHTs are in the mid to low 300s and TIT is usually around 1450.  The key to maintaining life on a turbo motor is managing it.  If you control the CHTs you'll get decent life.  Try not to let CHTs exceed 400 for any length of time.  Also, be gentle with the throttle, make minor adjustments.  Pull back a few inches at a time on descent and give the cylinders time to cool slowly.

 

Yes, a turbo motor will cost more.  TBO is less than non turbo.  The Lycoming IO 360 can almost always go to TBO without top overhaul.  That typically won't happen with a turbo motor, you'll almost always have to do a top before TBO. Turbocharger rebuilds can be mitigated by letting the engine cool down at idle before shutdown.  I let the TIT cool to 550 degrees before shutdown.  Takes about 3 minutes once I get to the ramp but it eliminated coking of the turbo bearings which is the biggest contributor to turbo failure.

 

If you want to learn a lot about managing motors I suggest you read the John Deakins Articles, he is a wealth of knowledge.  If you are not an engineer it will be hard to follow at times but you'll be a lot wiser when you finish.

[WardHolbrook]

Well, nothing unless something breaks loose.

 

My turbo, which is essentially the same setup as the 231 needed an overhaul at about 1000 hours. It cost $2400.

 

The pressure controller (unique to my setup) needed repair which was $250.

 

My exhaust system melted. I managed the repair myself and it cost about $150 for parts and labor plus 10 hours of my time.

 

Mostly it just works....

 

I don't understand why all of the apprehension about turbochargers. I've got several thousand hours in turbocharged aircraft (singles and twins) and the problems are few few and very far between and easily handled by a small line item in your budget. Personally, I wouldn't worry about it. 

[Danb]

Yep Capt. I believe temperature control is quite vital.managed conservatively there will most likely be just a marginal increase in cost

[aviatoreb]

 

Yes, a turbo motor will cost more.  TBO is less than non turbo.  The Lycoming IO 360 can almost always go to TBO without top overhaul.  That typically won't happen with a turbo motor, you'll almost always have to do a top before TBO. Turbocharger rebuilds can be mitigated by letting the engine cool down at idle before shutdown.  I let the TIT cool to 550 degrees before shutdown.  Takes about 3 minutes once I get to the ramp but it eliminated coking of the turbo bearings which is the biggest contributor to turbo failure.

 

 

I disagree with that procedure as many do - it is controversial.  Old thinking is that cool down on the ramp is good for the turbo.  But many, including me, believe that the time sitting on the ramp is actually heating things back up and the coolest it gets is following the lowered powers during approach to landing.  So therefore I do not cool before shut down, other than taxi time to the tie down.

 

Continentals, have suffered mid-time top problems generally whether turbo or not. Many including me blame poor workmanship on the valve seatings for that.  Some engines will need a mid time top no matter how you handle the engine, turbo or no, if the seating is poor and hot gasses leak through.  In my OH two years ago, I had my new cylinders valves reworked before installation since I think perfect seating when new is the key to a good engine.

 

 

If you want to learn a lot about managing motors I suggest you read the John Deakins Articles, he is a wealth of knowledge.  If you are not an engineer it will be hard to follow at times but you'll be a lot wiser when you finish.

 

Deakins writings are superb.

[Piloto]

CaptRJM is right about the real costs of the turbo engines. It is not only the turbo costs itself but the related costs of the shorter TBO of the engine when compared to non-turbo. A turbo engine will not only cost you more on maintenance but on fuel. "The fastest turbo is slower in the maintenance shop hangar than the flying non-turbo".

 

Looking at www.Flightaware.com turbo planes like the SR22 or the M20T I noticed that the overwhelming majority are flown below 10,000 feet. If the objective of the turbo is to fly above 15,000 feet the overwhelming majority of turbo owners are not doing it.

 

My rule: "If you do not have it (TKS, turbo, A/C) in your plane it will never break, give you a headache or break your wallet"

 

José

[KSMooniac]

The APS folks actually measured the turbocharger temperatures (not TIT) and found that the coolest they are during a flight is just before touchdown, and they get warmer from that point until the engine is shut down.  They don't get HOT per se, but sure don't get any cooler when you're idling it before shut down.

 

Continental engines in the last 20 years have had major quality issues with the workmanship of the valve & seat installation, and that has led to a lot of cylinder work before TBO.  Turbo ops may make a problem manifest itself a bit sooner than a NA engine, but it is not a causal factor.

[WardHolbrook]

All of the stuff like turbocharging, TKS, pressurization, etc certainly cost more money, but these additional options provide you with more capability. If your flying style or typical mission doesn't require those options then why spend the money? If you need it, it's just a matter of adjusting your budget accordingly. Flying is not a "one size fits all" arrangement.  

[M20F]

All of the stuff like turbocharging, TKS, pressurization, etc certainly cost more money, but these additional options provide you with more capability. If your flying style or typical mission doesn't require those options then why spend the money? If you need it, it's just a matter of adjusting your budget accordingly. Flying is not a "one size fits all" arrangement.

Just going to add to this and Piloto's comments which is for most a turbo is a waste because their mission simply does not require it. The specific reason I chose a M20F-TN as opposed to a 252 which I could have afforded is that I just don't fly far or high enough often enough to warrant the capital cost and additional wear/tear expenses. For the couple long trips I do take if it is advantageous I can get up over weather or get those FL tail winds along with 160-170KTAS.

When we go on a breakfast run I am about two minutes behind my friends turbo 310 and I burn 8 to his 25, when we go to Florida in beat him because he generally needs to stop for gas and I dont. If we both go non-stop I am about 40mins behind only.

Mission is everything in making the decision to me, not so much cost. If you need it, you need it but most don't and just add a lot of cost and complexity for something they would never use. I am putting in a G500 which I will use and appreciate a lot more than I would the cost/benefits of a 252 as example.

[Parker_Woodruff]

I don't think I has any squawk directly related to the turbocharging system in 2 years and 220? Hours flying my M20K

[Jerry 5TJ]

IMO - The main benefit from a  turbocharger is when you are picking up ice at, say, 14,000 and want to climb:   At that point turbocharging is perceived to be very valuable.    

[GaryP1007]

Just so I clear, I am trying to understand when everyone says "careful about the costs of a turbo" what they mean. I'm not debating the mission etc I am only trying to understand how it hits my wallet (or not) by making the decision to go turbo.

[WardHolbrook]

IMO - The main benefit from a  turbocharger is when you are picking up ice at, say, 14,000 and want to climb:   At that point turbocharging is perceived to be very valuable.    

 

The first turbocharged airplane I flew had turbocharging for one reason only - high density altitude takeoff performance. It was a Cessna Turbo 206 that we used to fly air tours to the Grand Canyon as well as for charters all around the West and Southwest US. The last turbocharged airplane I flew was a FIKI Cessna 421C. That airplane was pretty much a go anywhere, anytime, all-weather (within reason) airplane. The capabilities and comfort (potty, pressurized and airconditioned) fit our mission requirements perfectly. Like I said, it's all about capability and options. Having options is a good thing, but it costs money, but if you need the performance, you need it if you don't you don't. 

 

As far as what additional costs are incurred by turbocharging go. You're going to have a lower TBO. Those costed are reflected in your hourly operating budget - it will be a bit higher than a normally aspirated aircraft. My experience echoes that of Parker's - I honestly can't remember having a turbocharger related squawk in over 7,000 hours of turbocharged engine operation. (1,000 hours SE and 3,000 hours in twins.) If it makes you feel any better, throw in $2 or $3 into the hourly budget to cover whatever additional costs you might incur, but my bet is that you will consider that a small price to pay for the increased performance capabilities. I know I do.  

[Piloto]

I don't think I has any squawk directly related to the turbocharging system in 2 years and 220? Hours flying my M20K

 

Turbos are like people. When I was 20 (200hrs) I had no squawks but after 60 (600hrs) is all downhill. Either way just give it time.  

 

José 

[FBCK]

I have a 231, newer engine, but I have not had any issues witht he turbo system. A side not though would tell you the engines TSIO 360 is alot more expensive to get overhauled then a lycoming 360.

[Jerry 5TJ]

Just so I clear, I am trying to understand when everyone says "careful about the costs of a turbo" what they mean. I'm not debating the mission etc I am only trying to understand how it hits my wallet (or not) by making the decision to go turbo.

 

Based on 700 hours operating a T210, the turbocharger & accessories cost about $6 per hour in 2004-2008.  

[Danb]

A lot of falsehoods have been mentioned above...my Bravo has enabled me to clime above a lot of ice around the lakes my J could not have accomplished also I cool my big bore Lycoming down for the recommended 5 minutes..my extra costs of ownership has not been much higher than a non turbo long body..so far...

[kmyfm20s]

$12 to $24 more per hour in fuel burn in like models?

[Bravoman]

Again. It is my understanding that the Bravo engines, with the wet head design that lycoming came up with, go TBO and beyond with a 2000 hr TBO. My plane is a 98 with a little over 1000 hrs and is running real strong notwithstanding some years of less than optimal use(IMO ) by the previous owners. Great compressions etc and runs turbine smooth. I think the turbos of the 70s and 80s were a whole different animal from a reliability and reduced TBO standpoint. Personally I like having the turbo for the reasons I described in your last post, and I dont think the extra cost will be anything significant. I have a normally aspirated fixed gear Saratoga, and although I love that plane it is sucking wind at 110 and above---but it's got a 1420 lb useful load, which means full fuel plus 800+ lbs of payload. The Mooney can't do that at any speed or rate of climb!

[FlyDave]

I got my Bravo in December of last year after a trip with my wife to Jackson Hole WY in the J. Getting to 15K' en-route to KJAC with full fuel, the two of us and a bunch of luggage was a struggle. Departing KJAC on a cool morning with the same loading was a slow climb and required 3-4 360's to get to 12.5K' for a VFR routing. When we got to Lake Tahoe it was overcast, so I got a clearance to 14K' but started picking up a little ice. We made a 180 back to VFR and landed KRNO then departed about 1 hour later when there were VFR corridors to fly through.

Fast forward to the Bravo - I wouldn't trade this plane for the world. I have encountered ice a few times in this plane (once with jerry-N5911Q on the way back from New York) and I just add power and climb effortlessly to 18K' (or was it 20K' ?) and up out of the icing conditions.

My wife and I went to Phoenix in June (ohhhh, don't do this....) and if I had tried to climb out of Phoenix that day in the J it would have been painful. Instead, in the Bravo we climbed to 16.5K into cool smooth air for an ~3 hour leg back to NorCal. Amazing plane!

Again, I don't have much maintenance experience with this plane but I fly it fairly conservatively from a fuel perspective. ~95% of the Bravo's won't run LOP and mine is no exception. In typical cruise configuration I fly it at 65% power burning ~16 GPH depending on temps and altitude. This power setting gives me 190 KTAS at 17K' (I usually fly this plane high) and puts less stress on the engine and components (turbo, etc), thus making the plane more dependable/less likely to have a failure in flight. As stated by Bravoman, the engine in the Bravo has a 2,000 hour TBO and I have every intention of making it to TBO and beyond .

[Skywarrior]

The turbo-related costs I've had were caused by imprudent operation by the previous owner(s). I had to repair pitting in the exhaust transition pipe, and had to put in a new butterfly valve (wastegate). The original one had *disintegrated*.

 

Both problems were caused by excessive heat. I try to be conservative when operating the engine. Hopefully that will pay off for me.

[Danb]

When you look at Chuck , Dave Bravoman,aviator ,Ward, and most of us that have Turbos the theme seems to be keep control of our heat and not run the hell out of our machines..eg. if your running 30/34 and under or close to 1600 tit under 390-400 on the cht, we will not be causing damage, have decent speed 190+ and GPH of 16-18... comparing that to most twins our planes are close in speed but 1/2 the cost of maintaining 2 engines and considerably less than their fuel burn..Acclaims have similar numbers but with more speed...

[thinwing]

The combo of turbocharging and fiki have allowed us to complete pretty much 99% of our trips .High altitude ,high oat takeoffs have never been an issue and the abilty to outclimb or handle most weather we have encountered has proven a huge stress reducer.Since owning the Bravo that replaced a nonturbo,nondeiced Baron ,true IFR flights have become the norm vs many weather induced cancellations.Maintance costs have been (completely predictable so far)nothing out of the ordinary with no Turbo maintance issues,the tio-540 is smooth running,shows good compressions at 100 hr inspections..