Turbo Charger Cool Down

[gsxrpilot]

I'm pretty happy with the way Mooney and TCM put my 252 together. It's amazingly powerful and efficient.

[KSMooniac]

That is why many consider the 252 or Encore to be the best...great combo of speed and efficiency. The -540 &-550 powered birds are faster, but the bigger engines require more weight and more fuel to be carried and quickly you spiral away from the previous efficiency of the mid-body versions.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

[M016576]

3 hours ago, KSMooniac said:

That is why many consider the 252 or Encore to be the best...great combo of speed and efficiency. The -540 &-550 powered birds are faster, but the bigger engines require more weight and more fuel to be carried and quickly you spiral away from the previous efficiency of the mid-body versions.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk
 

What's the average useful load on a 252?

 

[KSMooniac]

I think in the 800-900 lb range, and the Encore conversion bumps it ~200 lbs.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

[Guest]

7 hours ago, jlunseth said:

The TCM 6 that makes 210 was installed when Mooney was still thinking about efficiency.  You don't really need more though, the K's are not underpowered.  

If it doesn't have one of these, it's underpowered.

[KLRDMD]

On 12/17/2016 at 1:04 PM, jlunseth said:

The TCM 6 that makes 210 was installed when Mooney was still thinking about efficiency.  You don't really need more though, the K's are not underpowered.  

Not at all underpowered. I've owned both a K and an M model Mooney (in addition to a C and a turbo F). 210 versus 270 HP on the K versus M. Of course the 270 HP version climbs and cruises faster but the K is very, very adequate. And the K will give you 90% of the cruise speed of the M at the same altitude on less than 50% of the fuel flow. At least that was my experience with my personal airplanes.

[KLRDMD]

On 12/17/2016 at 1:18 PM, gsxrpilot said:

I'm pretty happy with the way Mooney and TCM put my 252 together. It's amazingly powerful and efficient.

And for roughly 50-65% the current purchase price of a 252 I'm very happy with my 231 

[jlunseth]

The 231 is a great plane, very efficient and fast.  The aftermarket intercooler and Merlyn wastegate are very good additiopns.  The KFC200 AP is very capable, and with the addition of a GPS and GPSS its magic.

[aviatoreb]

On 12/17/2016 at 11:00 PM, M20Doc said:

If it doesn't have one of these, it's underpowered.

It could be said, that the IO720 is equivalent to two IO360's molded side-by-side inline.

So my question is, how does the operating costs compare to two IO360's?  What has two IO360s?  An early Piper Seneca?

[peevee]

I'm happy with our rocket so far. Over 1k useful and stellar climb rate. The K isn't a great climber. 

[jlunseth]

I don't use all of the climb rate the K has.  I stick to a climb of 500 fpm and the same for descent because it is easy on the passengers' ears.  I will do more if by myself, I don't have a problem with ear clearing being a diver, but I fly for Angel Flight Central a fair amount and don't want to create ear problems.  500 fpm works just fine.

[gsxrpilot]

My 252 will climb at gross weight+ at 800 fpm to FL210. I'm pretty happy with that. 

[Mark89114]

My thoughts on all of these theories of engine management is there just isn't enough controlled testing to prove either way.  There are some obviously well thought out theories and supporting evidence that supports and contradicts both sides.  Just take care of your stuff and what happens will happen.  

  

[DVA]

One thing is for sure... this thread ranks near the top for topic drift.

[gsxrpilot]

14 minutes ago, Mark89114 said:

My thoughts on all of these theories of engine management is there just isn't enough controlled testing to prove either way. 

You obviously haven't been to Ada, OK. 

[thinwing]

On 12/15/2016 at 8:24 PM, 201er said:

Wouldn't a turbocharger receive plenty of cooling during the landing pattern? Low power, air cooling, and oil moving? What's five more minutes?

Over on the Beech forum,the aps guys say it's worthless procedure and Turbo is coolest right after landing...however I notice my TIT about 750/800 after landing but after I taxi the mile back to my hanger it's back up to 900..if I idle for a couple minutes it drops back to 7/800...APS mentioned turbo bypass oil pressure is 15 psi ...there reasoning is oil press drops during idle and can starve bearings...I have never seen my oil pressure drop any where near that.Its at 50 psi or better at idle

[peevee]

3 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

My 252 will climb at gross weight+ at 800 fpm to FL210. I'm pretty happy with that. 

The rocket will do 1500 or better. If I lived in the flat lands I'd be fine with 500 or 809. I don't, and I'm not. 

[KLRDMD]

9 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

My 252 will climb at gross weight+ at 800 fpm to FL210. I'm pretty happy with that. 

I get 800 FPM in my 231 for about as high as I want to go too. Yes the Rocket or Bravo is more, on one hell of a lot more fuel.

[peevee]

25 minutes ago, KLRDMD said:

I get 800 FPM in my 231 for about as high as I want to go too. Yes the Rocket or Bravo is more, on one hell of a lot more fuel.

It only uses as much fuel as you give it. 

[Tony Armour]

5 hours ago, KLRDMD said:

I get 800 FPM in my 231 for about as high as I want to go too. Yes the Rocket or Bravo is more, on one hell of a lot more fuel.

Understatement. $$$$  

[donkaye]

2 hours ago, Tony Armour said:

Understatement. $$$$  

I was going to say I care, but I don't care.  Instead I'll say I wouldn't trade my airplane for any other Mooney--bar none!

[peevee]

4 hours ago, Tony Armour said:

Understatement. $$$$  

bringing the airplane home this month we ran in econ cruise. At 8000 feet we ran 165kts TAS per the aspen at 14.5-15GPH. That's essentially the same as our 231 would do. GGG to denver nonstop right at 4 hours.

 

Other than the climb fuel, which could be argued is probably a wash since I climb at nearly twice the rate on nowhere near twice the fuel, I fail to see where this big additional fuel expense is. Unless I want to run at 80% power and feed it 24GPH to do 230KTS TAS. Econ cruise is nearly identical to the 28" 2500RPM 68-70% cruise in the stock K. So, I wouldn't trade you either.

Edited December 20, 2016 by peevee

[Tony Armour]

4 hours ago, donkaye said:

I was going to say I care, but I don't care.  Instead I'll say I wouldn't trade my airplane for any other Mooney--bar none!

I have looked at one other Mooney since I got my Bravo. It was a newer Bravo  

Compared to my 201, fuel burns and speeds there isn't enough to worry about in $$ especially considering the capability. Now when fuel prices were really high I took notice and at overhaul time I will certainly need medication 

[jlunseth]

3 hours ago, peevee said:

bringing the airplane home this month we ran in econ cruise. At 8000 feet we ran 165kts TAS per the aspen at 14.5-15GPH. That's essentially the same as our 231 would do. GGG to denver nonstop right at 4 hours.

 

Other than the climb fuel, which could be argued is probably a wash since I climb at nearly twice the rate on nowhere near twice the fuel, I fail to see where this big additional fuel expense is. Unless I want to run at 80% power and feed it 24GPH to do 230KTS TAS. Econ cruise is nearly identical to the 28" 2500RPM 68-70% cruise in the stock K. So, I wouldn't trade you either.

Well, understand, i am not knocking your plane cause i would like one myself, but the 231 would do 160 and 11 GPH LOP.  OK, I might need to be at 10k to do that.

And on the earlier comment about no controlled research, I agree, you need to go to Ada if you think that.  Now, my feeling at Ada was that they have much more experience with NA than with turbos, and more with big bores than a small bore turbo like my TSIO360LB.  When it comes to the myth of turbo cool down it doesn't make any difference, when it came to running my engine LOP it did, but I figured it out.

Edited December 20, 2016 by jlunseth

[peevee]

6 minutes ago, jlunseth said:

Well, understand, i am not knocking your plane cause i would like one myself, but the 231 would do 160 and 11 GPH LOP.  OK, I might need to be at 10k to do that.

 

There is no way our 231 would. Absolutely none. 

I do happen to still own it and the rocket...