Turbo VS non-turbo maintenance costs

[Niko182]

2 hours ago, gevertex said:

It’s going to me me and 1-2 friends most of the time. I am currently getting my IFR, I would finish my training in the Mooney. Solo flights to see family from NC to MD once a month when the weather is good. I probably don’t need a turbo strictly speaking. Cheap is good for me. I can afford It, but I am generally pretty frugal. 

If youre frugal, a turbo is not the way the go. 

[aviatoreb]

4 hours ago, Niko182 said:

If youre frugal, a turbo is not the way the go. 

True.

But I think the truth is broader.  If you are frugal, an airplane is not the way to go.

[Z W]

When this topic comes up, there's always a great discussion of pros vs. cons.  What I like to pay attention to, is how many chime in that they bought a turbo, but then got tired of the cost and sold it to go back to a naturally-aspirated plane to save on maintenance and expense.  Very few people say that.  Those advising against the turbo seem to have limited experience with them.

On the other hand, lots of people chime in that one they have had the turbo, they don't want to ever go without one.  I'm in that category, except maybe I could live with a 300+ HP naturally aspirated engine.  Having plenty of horsepower to cruise at any altitude is great for comfort, safety, and in a distant third place, speed.

The turbo parts cost some to buy, overhaul, and maintain, but in the grand scheme of plane ownership, it's not much, and the benefits are significant.

[Schllc]

4 hours ago, Z W said:

When this topic comes up, there's always a great discussion of pros vs. cons.  What I like to pay attention to, is how many chime in that they bought a turbo, but then got tired of the cost and sold it to go back to a naturally-aspirated plane to save on maintenance and expense.  Very few people say that.  Those advising against the turbo seem to have limited experience with them.

On the other hand, lots of people chime in that one they have had the turbo, they don't want to ever go without one.  I'm in that category, except maybe I could live with a 300+ HP naturally aspirated engine.  Having plenty of horsepower to cruise at any altitude is great for comfort, safety, and in a distant third place, speed.

The turbo parts cost some to buy, overhaul, and maintain, but in the grand scheme of plane ownership, it's not much, and the benefits are significant.

Very much agree with this comment.

I disagree with the comment about the bravo engine being by far the most expensive.   It may have been at one time but, the continental is as much if not more now, and less available. 
 

As a comparison for the frugal minded, and born of actual experience.
I owned an ovation 3 for three years.

My mission was about 600 mile trips. Which I flew to the tune of close 200 hours a year then bought an acclaim with the same mission. 
The difference in my ownership costs per year have been negligible.
One turbo rebuild for $2800, and five oil changes instead of three were the only significant differences. 
 

In exchange I got the option to escape winds, climb out of icing, and shorten my trip by 20-40 minutes depending on the wind which, on that length trip is a bathroom stop or not. Either way on my trips, the fuel consumption was about 5% on average higher for the turbo. 

For the capability and options a turbo provided, I consider that a wash. 

[aviatoreb]

56 minutes ago, Z W said:

When this topic comes up, there's always a great discussion of pros vs. cons.  What I like to pay attention to, is how many chime in that they bought a turbo, but then got tired of the cost and sold it to go back to a naturally-aspirated plane to save on maintenance and expense.  Very few people say that.  Those advising against the turbo seem to have limited experience with them.

On the other hand, lots of people chime in that one they have had the turbo, they don't want to ever go without one.  I'm in that category, except maybe I could live with a 300+ HP naturally aspirated engine.  Having plenty of horsepower to cruise at any altitude is great for comfort, safety, and in a distant third place, speed.

The turbo parts cost some to buy, overhaul, and maintain, but in the grand scheme of plane ownership, it's not much, and the benefits are significant.

Good point re the fact that there are indeed not a bunch of people saying they sold their turbo plane and got a NA to save money.  That said, even if there is a good bit of money to save by owning a NA vs a turbo, once one owns a well trimmed, well maintained turbo airplane after a decade plus (me) of fixing it up, the overhead cost of starting over - selling - buying again - paying taxes - fixing it up - with dramatically overwhelm any savings of the operation - I think it would take a very long time to recoup the cost in any savings.  

By the way - another thought with flying high - I'm thinking of a typical flight I make - eastward - say to Boston or Providence (where my youngest is currently in school).  Its almost always tail winds going there eastward and very favorable to fly high both for tailwinds and for increasing TAS with altitude.  Sometimes the winds are so strong that its not worth it to fly high coming back so I fly lower.  So yeah if you can get a 50+ tail wind in one directly and say a 20 head wind on the way back (lower), well that's leveraging wind energy - green.

[carusoam]

11 hours ago, gevertex said:

It’s going to me me and 1-2 friends most of the time. I am currently getting my IFR, I would finish my training in the Mooney. Solo flights to see family from NC to MD once a month when the weather is good. I probably don’t need a turbo strictly speaking. Cheap is good for me. I can afford It, but I am generally pretty frugal. 

Sooooo many mixed signals….

1) Capital costs differences between NA and TC’d engines are pretty minimal… (compared to the whole nut)

2) Maintenance costs differences between NA and TC’d engines are pretty minimal… (compared to the whole annual maintenance)

3) primary mission… dragging two friends around…?  (My M20C did that really well…)

4) Having the financial ability, and not spending it all in one place…. (Welcome to the CB club! )  

 

Market conditions…

As fuel prices increase… large engines and TC interest decreases….

 

If you expect to own this plane forever…  get it outfit the way you want…

If you are unsure about what you want in your Mooney…. Get one that resells easily…

Expect that there will be a day when selling a plane becomes difficult again…

 

Basically, 

If you want to…

• fly between 10 and 20k’…
• Fly 200+ kts often

go turbo!

 

Remember…

There is such additional costs involved to do that… every flight that it gets used…

Climbing to higher altitudes takes time and money, that doesn’t get a 100% return during the descent…

 

Three aspects to being a Mooney owner…

1) Speed

2) Efficiency

3) A combination of the two…

 

For ultimate speed…

1) Fly in the flight levels…

2) Have a turbo to produce 65%bhp in thin air….

3) Use an O2 system comfortably…

 

Working on clearing up your mixed signals…. Will help define your plane wants and needs…

Don’t be surprised… once you have years of ownership experience… you can look back and say… I should have got this…. 

Or I wish my turbo had an intercooler, or a better MP controller…

 

An Acclaim makes a great plane for moving people up and down the East coast…

If you have a corporate flight department budget…

 

M20Cs Best entry level Mooney
M20Es Best retirement level Mooney
M20Js Best family level Mooney

M20Ks Best performance for one or two people level Mooney

For super performance Mooneys….

Go Long Body!

 

Life is short… Fly Fast!

Best regards,

-a-

[smwash02]

58 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

That said, even if there is a good bit of money to save by owning a NA vs a turbo, once one owns a well trimmed, well maintained turbo airplane after a decade plus (me) of fixing it up, the overhead cost of starting over - selling - buying again - paying taxes - fixing it up - with dramatically overwhelm any savings of the operation - I think it would take a very long time to recoup the cost in any savings.

In my opinion I think this is the reason why, at least for me. 

I have put thought into when my dispatch ability needs diminish and time is more free if I'd go back, but what you said above is why there's not much of a point. 

For me the turbo has been a marked maintenance cost difference as well as time to do said maintenance. Despite that, when I remember the advantages it brings when moving about, it's been worth it for me. 

[carusoam]

17 minutes ago, smwash02 said:

it's been worth it for me. 

Now, to find out something about the OP…

I bet it is worth it to him as well….  

 

Let’s see….

100 hours per year…

4$ per gallon

10gph or 15gph

4amu spent in fuel (efficently) 150kts

6amu spent in fuel (speedily) 200kts

distance covered 15k and 20knms …

Really round numbers….

 

Keep in mind…

Trips are actually in real miles, not hours…

52 round trips, one each week for a year, from NJ to Cape Cod… 52 X 400… 20k miles….

 

remember on short trips like this… by the time/distance to climb to altitude…. It may be time to start your descent… 

 

Turbos make the most sense/cents…

• for modern day sailors….
• When crossing multiple state lines… (long trips)
• Flying West to East… (tail winds)

 

Best regards,

-a-

 

[larryb]

There is a lot of luck in aircraft ownership and maintenance. You can have a turbo and have little added maintenance. You can have an NA and have a lot of maintenance. You can have airframe corrosion that will scrap the plane in some cases. Even with an NA plane and 300 hours SMOH you need the financial depth to overhaul that engine any day and not loose too much sleep over it. Counting on being lucky is not a great strategy with aircraft ownership. 

[smwash02]

5 hours ago, carusoam said:

Now, to find out something about the OP…

I bet it is worth it to him as well….  

 

Let’s see….

100 hours per year…

4$ per gallon

10gph or 15gph

4amu spent in fuel (efficently) 150kts

6amu spent in fuel (speedily) 200kts

This is where it gets a bit more nuanced.

My K is more fuel efficient than my C in several ways.

I plan(ed) 10-11gph in both, but get 10-30kts more speed out of the K depending on altitude. Sometimes more.

The C has smaller tanks compared to an F or a J, and would often require a fuel stop for my flights to maintain IFR reserve. 

The K also gives me more ability to take advantage of winds, of course.

The ability to escape the scorching heat of Texas ground faster in the K is a side benefit.

Comparing to bravos and ovations your numbers are likely spot on though, but I don't have firsthand experience. I briefly looked at the Bravo but didn't want to feed it.

Edited March 20, 2022 by smwash02

[stevedietrich]

 

Long time FORMER   owner of N231EW  (231/262) 0- 3,500 hours     ...... 

It was (for 20+ years)  the perfect airplane for flying to support my business, our racing and a 650NM Friday night flight to Eugene for a weekend of fishing  or just the weekly commute into LA .  

  "Frugal,  solo,  few times a month" .......  You are probably better off buying a non turbo  fixed gear single  for that mission or perhaps an earlier model Mooney if parts are still available. 

For serious flying on the west coast the ability to climb the Flight Levels was precious ; however for your mission something simpler sounds much more practical. 

 

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/chrisk48/48992378623/

 

Edited March 21, 2022 by stevedietrich
add comment

[gevertex]

On 3/20/2022 at 5:56 AM, aviatoreb said:

True.

But I think the truth is broader.  If you are frugal, an airplane is not the way to go.

I am frugal with a willingness to spend money where it matters.  Flying is important to me, and aircraft ownership is a life long goal. I get it will be expensive. I just want to be smart about it and not get myself in a situation where I am spending way more than needed to achieve my goal. Sounds like turbo is not for me. 

[gevertex]

I really appreciate everyone’s advice. Thanks!

[hubcap]

I am in the "I bought a turbo and don't want to go back" crowd. I have a "K" Model. My mission is very simple - 2 people as far and fast as is affordable. We flew almost 200 hours last year and spent a fair amount of time in the mid-teens or above. There are certainly times when due to the winds you are flying at an altitude that N/A planes fly. To me the turbo is worth it when I need to go high for weather or speed. I have two Foreflight profiles for planning purposes. The first is for flying in the mid-teens and the plane will very honestly do 175kts TAS on a teensy bit more than 10 gallons/hr. When flying lower I file for 150 kts which is meh but not able to take advantage of the turbo. 

[Will.iam]

I’m in the turbo crowd as well. Another point is that if babied the turbo will need to be overhauled about the same time as a NA exhaust will and they are close to the same price to overhaul. I burn 9.5 @ 25 rpm that puts me slightly LOP but at 2k I’m doing 147kts

at 8k 150kts at 12k 155kts at 15k 160kts. All on the same fuel burn! So the higher i go the faster and cheaper as I’m not using more fuel in cruise. Now i used more to climb but i get part of that back in descent. 
one last point on a turbo with an automatic waste gate like the 252 it makes mixture control soooo much easier i just keep everything fire-walled in the climb to cruise altitude. I do not have to mess with leaning out the mixture in the climb like NA engines. And that works in the descent too one setting change and the mixture doesn’t get messed with because my MP is constant all the way down. Ironic that the complexity of the turbo actually makes my fuel and throttle control management easier to do than a NA engine.   

[LANCECASPER]

On 3/17/2022 at 8:32 AM, gevertex said:

Hey All,

   I am new here, but have adored Moonies since my uncle took me for a ride when I was 6.  I have been looking at purchasing a 90's J model, and can't help but notice the Bravos on the market.  I understand that turbo normalization will reduce the degradation in performance altitude causes normally asperated aircraft, but I am more interested in the additional costs of turbo vs non-turbo.  I don't strictly speaking need to travel 200+kts at 25k ft, lol. Are their additional overhaul requirements, how much, how often do they go bad, etc?  Can I expect to pay more in insurance for a turbo vs non-turbo?

I really appreciate all of your help.  I searched for turbo maintenance before posting, but didn't find anything on this topic.

--George

Bottom line is that if you buy a non-turbo you will most likely really like the airplane and never look back.

My mistake was that I owned 4 different turbo Mooneys (231, 2 Bravos and an Encore) before I bought an Ovation and did the 310hp STC. Absolutely beautiful airplane. I had the panel just the way I wanted it. Everyone complimented me on the color and scheme. The interior was great. The take-off and initial climb performance was amazing, but in the Texas summers I like to fly in the mid teens to get above the cumulus that hangs at 10-12K feet.  The climb performance  I was used to just wasn't there with that hot humid air. I had taken for granted the climb performance I had before. After less than two years I sold it and  went back to a turbo Mooney, which I owned six years. I recently sold that one and bought another Turbo Mooney. Everyone's experience is different and as @larryb mentioned, even if you're doing proper maintenance, a lot of times it's just a game of chance on whether you incur unplanned  costs. My maintenance costs have not been higher with the Turbo Mooneys than they were with the non-Turbo, although I did some catch-up Maintenance on the Ovation I bought. As has been mentioned many times before,  since you're flying faster don't compare quite as much fuel burn per hour between the two since you're covering more miles per hour, look more at total fuel over the trip.

(I think where the "It's costs way more to fly a turbo than non-turbo" conversation gets skewed is when someone buys a turbo airplane, especially a 231, which requires a little more attention and finesse to keep it cool, and early in their ownership they have a big repair bill. If the previous owner, who maybe never had any training on how to operate a turbo, cooked the turbo and maybe the engine and a good pre-buy wasn't done I could see how that could really affect your thinking about owning a turbocharged airplane. There have probably been a few people who have owned more turbo Mooneys than me, but in my case it just hasn't been an issue.)

[Will.iam]

1 hour ago, LANCECASPER said:

Bottom line is that if you buy a non-turbo you will most likely really like the airplane and never look back.

My mistake was that I owned 4 different turbo Mooneys (231, 2 Bravos and an Encore) before I bought an Ovation and did the 310hp STC. Absolutely beautiful airplane. I had the panel just the way I wanted it. Everyone complimented me on the color and scheme. The interior was great. The take-off and initial climb performance was amazing, but in the Texas summers I like to fly in the mid teens to get above the cumulus that hangs at 10-12K feet.  The climb performance  I was used to just wasn't there with that hot humid air. I had taken for granted the climb performance I had before. After less than two years I sold it and  went back to a turbo Mooney, which I owned six years. I recently sold that one and bought another Turbo Mooney. Everyone's experience is different and as @larryb mentioned, even if you're doing proper maintenance, a lot of times it's just a game of chance on whether you incur unplanned  costs. My maintenance costs have not been higher with the Turbo Mooneys than they were with the non-Turbo, although I did some catch-up Maintenance on the Ovation I bought. As has been mentioned many times before,  since you're flying faster don't compare quite as much fuel burn per hour between the two since you're covering more miles per hour, look more at total fuel over the trip.

(I think where the "It's costs way more to fly a turbo than non-turbo" conversation gets skewed is when someone buys a turbo airplane, especially a 231, which requires a little more attention and finesse to keep it cool, and early in their ownership they have a big repair bill. If the previous owner, who maybe never had any training on how to operate a turbo, cooked the turbo and maybe the engine and a good pre-buy wasn't done I could see how that could really affect your thinking about owning a turbocharged airplane. There have probably been a few people who have owned more turbo Mooneys than me, but in my case it just hasn't been an issue.)

which model did you recently get?

[LANCECASPER]

26 minutes ago, Will.iam said:

which model did you recently get?

Acclaim Type S

[Will.iam]

Wow moving on up! Since you have owned an encore how does it compare for you?

[M20F-1968]

I'll chime in and give support for the uncommon Mooney.  My F (now really a J) is turbonormalized.  So far at least I have not had much in the way of added maintenance costs.  Finding a way to turbonormalize an F or J now is difficult.  The parts are available but you will need to put together the necessary parts and documentation yourself, and find a propulsion DER to sign it off.  It is a significant upgrade for the J however allowing 27" manifold pressure to 20,000 ft. with the economy of an IO-360.  Then once you do that, you will want to upgrade the rest of the plane and avionics 

John Breda

[A64Pilot]

Any increase in complexity will eventually cost you. It’s not a so much a month cost, it’s what does it cost at overhaul, then amortize it over time. Sure until overhaul time or if it just breaks then there is little additional expense, and by overhaul include the other systems and the reduction in engine life that’s real. Surely only a few believe you can run significantly higher power output and not reduce the life of an engine? Even TN of course increases power output or what’s the point if it doesn’t?

For example if an engine overhaul cost $50K, and TBO is 2,000 hours, then engine costs $25 an hour, the bill may not come due for years but it does come due eventually, if you disagree with TBO hours, use whatever hours you think you’ll get.

Let’s ask the guy that is AOG in TLH what his turbo maintenance ends up costing him.

I am NOT saying it’s not worth it, for many it’s way more than worth it, just don’t think there is little if any additional expense just because it hasn’t hit yet.

[aviatoreb]

36 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

Any increase in complexity will eventually cost you. It’s not a so much a month cost, it’s what does it cost at overhaul, then amortize it over time. Sure until overhaul time or if it just breaks then there is little additional expense, and by overhaul include the other systems and the reduction in engine life that’s real. Surely only a few believe you can run significantly higher power output and not reduce the life of an engine? Even TN of course increases power output or what’s the point if it doesn’t?

For example if an engine overhaul cost $50K, and TBO is 2,000 hours, then engine costs $25 an hour, the bill may not come due for years but it does come due eventually, if you disagree with TBO hours, use whatever hours you think you’ll get.

Let’s ask the guy that is AOG in TLH what his turbo maintenance ends up costing him.

I am NOT saying it’s not worth it, for many it’s way more than worth it, just don’t think there is little if any additional expense just because it hasn’t hit yet.

I largely agree with what you said.  I fly turbo because I think it is worth it.  I don't fly turbo thinking it doesn't have any extra cost.

[Will.iam]

9 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

Any increase in complexity will eventually cost you. It’s not a so much a month cost, it’s what does it cost at overhaul, then amortize it over time. Sure until overhaul time or if it just breaks then there is little additional expense, and by overhaul include the other systems and the reduction in engine life that’s real. Surely only a few believe you can run significantly higher power output and not reduce the life of an engine? Even TN of course increases power output or what’s the point if it doesn’t?

For example if an engine overhaul cost $50K, and TBO is 2,000 hours, then engine costs $25 an hour, the bill may not come due for years but it does come due eventually, if you disagree with TBO hours, use whatever hours you think you’ll get.

Let’s ask the guy that is AOG in TLH what his turbo maintenance ends up costing him.

I am NOT saying it’s not worth it, for many it’s way more than worth it, just don’t think there is little if any additional expense just because it hasn’t hit yet.

I do believe TC can shorten the life of the engine because you can, where as NA that choice is removed from you as the moment you start climbing the MP is reducing lowering your power after liftoff. NA only has seconds at full rated hp where as TC it’s full HP until the throttle lever is pulled back which is minutes in most cases. 
Reminds me of a top gear episode where they showed a BMW M3 got better gas mileage than a Prius because they raced the prius around the track and the M3 just had to keep up. While it showed gas savings was far more dependent on smooth driving skills than technology, the other observation is that the M3 had a choice to drive conservatively or drive very fast. The prius has only the choice of conservative or drive sorta fast. I’m sure the prius engine will last longer than the M3 as you can’t abuse the prius engine like you can the M3. 

[LANCECASPER]

On 3/28/2022 at 9:55 PM, Will.iam said:

Wow moving on up! Since you have owned an encore how does it compare for you?

The Encore is maybe the pinnacle of Mooney efficiency with the ability to go high if you want to catch a nice tailwind. Mine had TKS so that cost about 7 knots from what I could tell. Although TKS is nice to have, I live in Texas and would not have seen the use that many people would have, though it was a perfect fit for the gentleman in Erie, PA that bought it.

The speed of the Acclaim, even LOP at conservative settings, is very impressive. Even though it's a bigger heavier airplane, it can be flown at Encore speeds at very close to Encore fuel flows with the cleaned up airframe or it can be flown at Acclaim speeds or anything in between. It's almost like having an Encore, an Ovation and an Acclaim  . lol

 

[Will.iam]

7 hours ago, LANCECASPER said:

The Encore is maybe the pinnacle of Mooney efficiency with the ability to go high if you want to catch a nice tailwind. Mine had TKS so that cost about 7 knots from what I could tell. Although TKS is nice to have, I live in Texas and would not have seen the use that many people would have, though it was a perfect fit for the gentleman in Erie, PA that bought it.

The speed of the Acclaim, even LOP at conservative settings, is very impressive. Even though it's a bigger heavier airplane, it can be flown at Encore speeds at very close to Encore fuel flows with the cleaned up airframe or it can be flown at Acclaim speeds or anything in between. It's almost like having an Encore, an Ovation and an Acclaim  . lol

 

Thanks for the insight. I would love to have an acclaim but it’s financially out of my league.  if i win the lottery, and can bribe someone to let theirs go but by then I’ll probably be too old to fly.