So Many Planes Choices! Need Biased Perspective

[Jerry 5TJ]

12 hours ago, irishpilot said:

.....Turbines are more reliable, especially the PT-6 family, but they have costly mx that adds up as well.....

Well, I know that proof by example is no proof.  But for example—The annual last year on my PT6A-35 took about 5 hours of labor for inspections and $80.00 for the 100 hour gasket kit.   

[Shadrach]

20 hours ago, smccray said:

It’s not just the gph that matters. It’s the fuel cost per mile. 100LL is so much more expensive than Jet A that the higher fuel burn with a turbo prop is no big deal.  At the same capital cost would take the higher fuel burn of the turbine engine.

Acquisition cost was out of my budget but I briefly considered a turbine conversion. The Silver Eagle (P210 conversion) made more sense to me than the Bonanza. There’s some good info on the different bonanza conversions at Beechtalk- at the end of the day I would want pressurization with a Turbine engine. 

TN A36 Photo attached- 190 true at 13,000 ft on just over 16 GPH.

I’m assuming you can touch 200 in the high teens but it might take a touch more gas?

[smccray]

2 hours ago, Shadrach said:

I’m assuming you can touch 200 in the high teens but it might take a touch more gas?

I’m still getting comfortable with the settings, but they say an extra 2 knots per thousand ft of altitude.  Same fuel burn.  I’m fairly light in that photo, but the plane has 1350 lbs of useful load.  4000 lb gross weight- she’s a dog on the runway, but get her going and she’ll haul a$$.  She burns fuel like a Bravo, but she’s a little slower and can carry more.

I should be able to run 17-17.5 GPH through her keeping her nice and cool, but I’m not generating quite enough manifold pressure to do that.  If I drop her down to 2300 RPM, it only costs about 5 ktas and saves probably 1 GPH.  Admittedly that’s one of the better performance photos I’ve seen, but’s I’m working through the system settings to get her dialed in after buying her a year ago.  

[Shadrach]

36 minutes ago, smccray said:

I’m still getting comfortable with the settings, but they say an extra 2 knots per thousand ft of altitude.  Same fuel burn.  I’m fairly light in that photo, but the plane has 1350 lbs of useful load.  4000 lb gross weight- she’s a dog on the runway, but get her going and she’ll haul a$$.  She burns fuel like a Bravo, but she’s a little slower and can carry more.

I should be able to run 17-17.5 GPH through her keeping her nice and cool, but I’m not generating quite enough manifold pressure to do that.  If I drop her down to 2300 RPM, it only costs about 5 ktas and saves probably 1 GPH.  Admittedly that’s one of the better performance photos I’ve seen, but’s I’m working through the system settings to get her dialed in after buying her a year ago.  

16.1gph must be ROP. Have you tried LOP?

[smccray]

39 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

16.1gph must be ROP. Have you tried LOP?

Lol- that is LOP. She burns 35 GPH on takeoff to provide adequate margin for detonation. The NA io550 is 28 GPH on takeoff. 

[Shadrach]

42 minutes ago, smccray said:

Lol- that is LOP. She burns 35 GPH on takeoff to provide adequate margin for detonation. The NA io550 is 28 GPH on takeoff. 

You have a Turbo Normalized IO550, correct? That engine has a compression ration of 8.5:1.  LOP 16.1gph should yield about 240hp or ~80%. I would have expected more speed at that power setting given Textron claims the NA birds are good for 176kts down lower. The only Bo I have time in is an early 520 powered A36 and it was a 165kt bird at 5000-7000.

[smccray]

41 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

You have a Turbo Normalized IO550, correct? That engine has a compression ration of 8.5:1.  LOP 16.1gph should yield about 240hp or ~80%. I would have expected more speed at that power setting given Textron claims the NA birds are good for 176kts down lower. The only Bo I have time in is an early 520 powered A36 and it was a 165kt bird at 5000-7000.

Here’s what Tornado Alley publishes.  This is for the Whirlwind II system.  I haven’t seen numbers published for the III system which adds an intercooler and an air scoop to the front of the cowl, but they say you can push more fuel (more HP) and keep operating temps in a safe range.

Users report that the published numbers are accurate for a TNA36.  YMMV

I haven’t heard performance like 176 in level flight for an A36. It may be a marketing number- just like a J is a 200 MPH plane but in the real world it isn’t that high. I’m pretty pleased with the performance. 

[aviatoreb]

19 hours ago, Davidv said:

Speaking of cirrus, I love this video:

(and the fact that what looks like a bravo makes an appearance at the end).

 

 

I love that guy!

[kpaul]

20 hours ago, Davidv said:

Speaking of cirrus, I love this video:

(and the fact that what looks like a bravo makes an appearance at the end).

 

 

Damn, I now realize I have been doing my pre-flight all wrong.  Pre-flight tube check and cloud residue...ROLFMAO.

[HXG]

Love the Cirrus pre-flight video. 

I also love my Bravo (FIKI) for value and capability. I highly recommend it.

Ovations are nice if you don’t need a turbo, but the factory pre- 2006-7 G-1000s are a no go for me.

The Acclaims are outstanding but at least double the price of a Bravo.

The better newer turbo FIKI Cirrus and Mooney Ultras are 3-4 times the cost.

The older Malibus can be expensive to maintain. Pressurization is nice for passengers, but I don’t personally mind wearing a cannula or mask.   

Bonanzas are a great flying airplane with good room, some Aft CG issues, but few are available with TKS and anecdotally seem to me be maintenance hogs. 

Lancair can’t be beat for speed and efficiency. Very few have TKS or thermal deice if that’s important. 

My dream would be a TBM or Pilatus, but that isn’t gonna happen for most of us.

 

Edited June 10, 2019 by HXG

[Guest]

12 hours ago, Jerry 5TJ said:

Well, I know that proof by example is no proof.  But for example—The annual last year on my PT6A-35 took about 5 hours of labor for inspections and $80.00 for the 100 hour gasket kit.   

You must be missing cracked cylinders, compression checks, magneto timing, vacuum pump failures, slipping starter adapters and all of those other piston engine items!

Clarence

[aviatoreb]

1 hour ago, kpaul said:

Damn, I now realize I have been doing my pre-flight all wrong.  Pre-flight tube check and cloud residue...ROLFMAO.

I have not been checking for cloud residue on the wings.  I’ll need to add that to the check list that I keep on the glare shield.

[irishpilot]

Thanks for all the advice. As of now my business partner and I have narrowed it down to a fully equipped 252 and a Bravo. Going to look at both this week. Will report back.


Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[KLRDMD]

Both excellent choices.

[peevee]

2 hours ago, irishpilot said:

Thanks for all the advice. As of now my business partner and I have narrowed it down to a fully equipped 252 and a Bravo. Going to look at both this week. Will report back.


Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
 

I don't think you'd find a fiki sr22t in budget so the bravo or 252 is probably the way to go.

I think a fiki g3 is going to run 420k ish. Don't waste your time with the no hazard shit. Get the fiki with redundancy 

Edited June 10, 2019 by peevee

[Austintatious]

He missed something in that preflight video.... Someone mistakenly replaced his oil cap with a 710 cap... concerning?

[irishpilot]

Update: looked at a Rocket and Bravo, now putting an offer on the Bravo. Best fit for our mission and has FIKI and redundant systems. MTF...

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[exM20K]

9 hours ago, irishpilot said:

Update: looked at a Rocket and Bravo, now putting an offer on the Bravo. Best fit for our mission and has FIKI and redundant systems. MTF...

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
 

Thanks for updating the post with your choice. It sounds like you made a careful, thoughtful choice, and I hope your purchase goes through w/o a hitch.

-dan

[HXG]

Both great airplanes.  Great choice.  I hope it works out well.