Turbo VS non-turbo maintenance costs

[gevertex]

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

[aviatoreb]

Just now, 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

My opinion as an owner, and note I have not owned the variety of models to contrast.  

The M20M Turbo charged Lycoming 6 cylinder is easily the most expensive engine in the fleet at overhaul time.  Much more so than the Continental turbo charged engines.  And any of the 6 cylinder engines are somewhat more expensive than the 4 cylinder Lycoming IO360 on a J.  So I would say that the price jump in engine from an M20J to an M20M is significant.  I think this is one factor why the acquisition cost of an M20M may be not as high as you would guess.  Still in my opinion, a M20M is a fantastic plane and would definitely be on my shopping list.

In my opinion a turbo Mooney is significantly more capable than a nonturbo.  And well worth it.  But it is more expensive.

Insurance?  I don't know if a turbo costs any more at all than a non turbo considering same hull value.

Turbos - rule of thumb, should be overhauled somewhat sooner than tbo.  In a continental - say at about 1000hrs. Don't ask me how I know this.  Less if it has been sitting (corroding) a lot and also less, if it has been running high Tit by a ham fisted pilot.  And also that puts stress on the exhaust system.

The step up from a J to more capable would be a 300hp M20R - which is so desirable that the acquisition cost is huge, so weigh that against the marginal cost of maintenance than the cheaper to acquire M20M.  Also the M20J Missile with the IO550 is really a fantastic plane, but a bit of a unicorn to find these days.

Clearly I went turbo - rocket M20K, TSIO520NB.  Damned the torpedos (cost) I love the increased performance of a turbo - not just speed - but climb rate is out of this world, and also the climb authority say if you screw up and find yourself in ice or something at 13000 ft - well you can climb out quick - was the idea.  

[A64Pilot]

It will be hard to put a number on it, but anytime you increase an engines output, wear goes up to, then of course exhaust system is under higher stress too and requires repairs / replacement more often, there is a turbo with all its fittings, wastegate etc.

If you rarely have need of a turbo, it’s probably best to avoid one, unless money isn’t a concern, as your asking I have to assume it is.

For most an airplane that requires less maintenance and lower operating costs, is an airplane an average Joe can fly much more often and for longer flights.

I’ve heard that’s it normal for all pilots to eventually buy an airplane that they can’t afford to fly. Back in the day that was twins, and why twins can be had at such a bargain price.

The J in my opinion is among the most frugal of any airplane, so long as the cam stays good anyway

Edited March 17, 2022 by A64Pilot

[AGL Aviation]

Good Morning! From a maintenance perspective, our turbo annuals are more expensive than a standard Mooney (by $255 I believe - but not all shops are equal in terms of pricing). Recommended annual times is higher for the turbo (the turbo requires its own inspection). The manufacturer has guidance on the condition of the turbo and any time sensitive maintenance if applicable. Depending on how the turbo’s life has been, they sometimes do have to be removed and sent off for repair or exchange. It’s difficult to put a price range on that operation since it’s dependent on the issue. We’ve had the costs ranging from $1500 to $3500 for exchange.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fly Boomer]

Not the greatest writer, but this line of reasoning influenced me:

M20K 231 Turbo is NOT Significantly More Expensive Than a 201.pdf

[aviatoreb]

1 hour ago, AGL Aviation said:

Good Morning! From a maintenance perspective, our turbo annuals are more expensive than a standard Mooney (by $255 I believe - but not all shops are equal in terms of pricing). Recommended annual times is higher for the turbo (the turbo requires its own inspection). The manufacturer has guidance on the condition of the turbo and any time sensitive maintenance if applicable. Depending on how the turbo’s life has been, they sometimes do have to be removed and sent off for repair or exchange. It’s difficult to put a price range on that operation since it’s dependent on the issue. We’ve had the costs ranging from $1500 to $3500 for exchange.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In the rocket at least, the turbo is in such an annoying difficult to get at location, the the hours to r&r are greater than the cost of the overhaul itself.  So I would say at least double what you just quoted for cost.

[gevertex]

The Bravo I saw has a Lycoming TIO-540-A1FB.  I was politely corrected that this is a true turbo, not just normalized.  That engine may exceed my willingness to feed it AMUs.  But a J or a K could be good options for me.  I am mostly flying for fun and to visit family so I tend to fly on good weather days.  Perhaps the Bravo is too much airplane for me.

[flyboy0681]

49 minutes ago, gevertex said:

The Bravo I saw has a Lycoming TIO-540-A1FB.  I was politely corrected that this is a true turbo, not just normalized.  That engine may exceed my willingness to feed it AMUs.  But a J or a K could be good options for me.  I am mostly flying for fun and to visit family so I tend to fly on good weather days.  Perhaps the Bravo is too much airplane for me.

Would be helpful to know where you are located and whether you need to climb over mountains.

[gevertex]

1 hour ago, flyboy0681 said:

Would be helpful to know where you are located and whether you need to climb over mountains.

I am in North Carolina. I haven't needed to fly over the local mountains yet. They top out around 7k msl. So I can see my max altitude for mountains sake needing to be >8.5k.

[A64Pilot]

Unless you head West, WAY west, you likely don’t “need” a turbo. 

However if you frequently do long trips, then it can be worthwhile to get up high depending on winds and go significantly faster. But if you only expect a couple of long trips a tear, then maybe not.

ALL turbos are “real” turbos just back in the day turbos that were used to boost seal level HP significantly got sort of a bad rep because of the greatly increased engine stresses and wear, so along came normalization that was initially sold as being the same as an NA engine as it didn’t increase SL power, just carried it up way high.

The truth is sort of in the middle because in normal cruise a normalized engine is capable of significantly greater power than an NA motor and if you don’t use it, then what was the point?

[A64Pilot]

I would advise if this is your first complex airplane then get  a J model or earlier, then after a year or two then you will have a much better handle on where’re you need a turbo or not.

Right now aircraft are in my opinion WAY overpriced, so don’t buy high $$$ now, all aircraft will loose value soon the more expensive ones will lose more of course. 

[aviatoreb]

1 hour ago, A64Pilot said:

Unless you head West, WAY west, you likely don’t “need” a turbo. 

However if you frequently do long trips, then it can be worthwhile to get up high depending on winds and go significantly faster. But if you only expect a couple of long trips a tear, then maybe not.

ALL turbos are “real” turbos just back in the day turbos that were used to boost seal level HP significantly got sort of a bad rep because of the greatly increased engine stresses and wear, so along came normalization that was initially sold as being the same as an NA engine as it didn’t increase SL power, just carried it up way high.

The truth is sort of in the middle because in normal cruise a normalized engine is capable of significantly greater power than an NA motor and if you don’t use it, then what was the point?

I disagree strongly with this advise that the west or long trips are the only two main reasons to need a turbo.

I described an east coast reasons to need a turbo.  Which is ice.  And ice is always a possibility if IFR in cold weather.  So whether or not you plan to fly in ice, you should always plan to fly out of ice.  Often ice is only in a relatively thin layer so 3 or 4k thick, so I read, and sometimes the best solution is down.  But sometimes the best solution is up. If you find yourself in ice at 12k ask yourself how can you get out in a minute or two.  Up?  Down?  Turn around?  You want a turbo if you want to include up in this analysis.   So it may not be something you need often - hopefully not often, but if you need it, if you need to be able to climb with authority....turbo.

 

Edited March 17, 2022 by aviatoreb

[larryb]

Back when I was a kid growing up in San Francisco my parents bought cars with no air conditioning. "We don't need air conditioning, we live in San Francisco."  But what happens when you take that car without air conditioning on a road trip to Arizona? It's mighty hot in Arizona.

 

I think it's the same thing with turbocharged airplanes. "I live in the East, I don't need a turbo" is something we often hear on these pages.  But the best part of Mooney ownership is that it's a great traveling airplane.  I've taken mine across the country a couple of times, and plan more of that. 

 

I've owned a Turbo Mooney for 5 years and an NA Mooney 5 years before that. Both engines have cost me a new cylinder in that time, so no difference there. The only turbo-specific repair I have needed was a scavenge pump rebuild. NA engines don't have a scavenger pump. In the long term, a turbo should cost more since there are more systems to break. But it's not a huge difference in the total ownership cost.

 

Larry

[aviatoreb]

21 minutes ago, larryb said:

Back when I was a kid growing up in San Francisco my parents bought cars with no air conditioning. "We don't need air conditioning, we live in San Francisco."  But what happens when you take that car without air conditioning on a road trip to Arizona? It's mighty hot in Arizona.

 

I think it's the same thing with turbocharged airplanes. "I live in the East, I don't need a turbo" is something we often hear on these pages.  But the best part of Mooney ownership is that it's a great traveling airplane.  I've taken mine across the country a couple of times, and plan more of that. 

 

I've owned a Turbo Mooney for 5 years and an NA Mooney 5 years before that. Both engines have cost me a new cylinder in that time, so no difference there. The only turbo-specific repair I have needed was a scavenge pump rebuild. NA engines don't have a scavenger pump. In the long term, a turbo should cost more since there are more systems to break. But it's not a huge difference in the total ownership cost.

 

Larry

 I agree with your first part entirely!  I have been to the west - and I didn't blink because I had a turbo.

Still it was the thought of ice as I said as to why I shopped a turbo.

Second part - you didn't mention - if I compare my TSIO520NB rocket vs an IO550 missile (by far the best comparison between efficiency since they are otherwise identical airframes), I must admit that the missile would be way cheaper to own.  Not because of maintenance which is not all that much really, but because of fuel.  A missile is much more fuel efficient than a rocket, even if we are both tuned to the same speed, say 180kts at a given altitude - where missile can do that easily, say 10k. (But I do get more efficient at that speed higher up..and faster).  Still in a hundred hour year, I bet I buy a good bit more fuel.

[Niko182]

a bravo and ovation are more comparable in prices, but a J versus a bravo isn't. The bravo is going to be significantly more to maintain and own than the J is. Nothing against the bravo. It just has a more expensive engine and uses a little more than double the amount of fuel. A J is about the most efficient certified 4 place aircraft there is to own. a bravo is not.

[GeeBee]

Just a sample of coming attractions

 

[larryb]

In my J I burned 8.5GPH in cruise. In my Encore I burn 9.5GPH in cruise. Takeoff fuel flow is quite a bit different, 18 GPH in the J, and gradually lowering in the climb. 25 GPH in the K all the way to top of climb. But I get to top of climb a lot quicker and cover more distance in the climb. In my typical 150nm flight I do burn a couple gallons more in the K than I used to in the J. Garmin Pilot logbook feature shows average cross country speed, block-block, of 133 for the J and 145 for the K. That is an average speed over several years and hundreds of flights. The K could fly 20kt faster, but takes a lot more fuel and causes a lot more engine wear, so I typically don't do it.

[ilovecornfields]

I think if cost was not an issue we would all have a turbo(prop). For me, costs were a consideration so I decided to get an Ovation.

Prof. @aviatoreb sums it up pretty nicely.

[aviatoreb]

20 minutes ago, Niko182 said:

a bravo and ovation are more comparable in prices, but a J versus a bravo isn't. The bravo is going to be significantly more to maintain and own than the J is. Nothing against the bravo. It just has a more expensive engine and uses a little more than double the amount of fuel. A J is about the most efficient certified 4 place aircraft there is to own. a bravo is not.

Right - I was trying to convey that.

Maybe compare a M20J vs a standard M20K?

A M20R vs a M20M

A M20K rocket vs an M20J missile. 

As far as cost goes.  But surely the M20M is the most expensive of this bunch.  Still not knocking it - fab airplane. And M20J least expensive.

[aviatoreb]

7 minutes ago, ilovecornfields said:

I think if cost was not an issue we would all have a turbo(prop). For me, costs were a consideration so I decided to get an Ovation.

Prof. @aviatoreb sums it up pretty nicely.

If price is no object, can I get a Falcon?

No wait - sign me up for a space shuttle.

But seriously...me to turbo prop.  But cost is of course a factor.  Early on I figured twin would be something neat up the cost ladder, but really I have no desire for a twin anymore if I had anymore money.  Turbo prop is the next stop up the price ladder, both for reliability, speed, and dispatchability.  But the Mooney is fab.  I am very happy, and unlikely to move up any time soon and I recognize its capability in the missions I choose to do, or not do.  And it is expensive yes, but well within my means without stress, whereas yes I perhaps could buy a turbo prop, but then it would need to be parked full time in my hangar!

Edited March 17, 2022 by aviatoreb

[donkaye, MCFI]

I've owned my Bravo for nearly 30 years, so have a good understanding of maintenance costs.  I'm now on my 3rd engine. The 1st one made it to 2295 hours, but it had the Bravo upgrade at 1300 hours.  The second one made it to 1600 hours and would have gone all the way to TBO had it not been for an unfortunate screwup by the maintenance facility during an annual.  I chose to replace the engine and get credit for the remove and replace rather than do the required teardown.  Until there is a change in petroleum philosophy, (not likely with the present unleadership) there will be a significant increase in costs of ownership due to fuel costs.  Actual engine exchange for a zero time reman at present is about $80,000 all in.  The turbo and waste gate from experience should be overhauled proactively around 1300 hours and cost about $2500 several years ago.  Once again I expect inflation to be going strong for at least the next 3 years so everything is going to go up dramatically.  My  recommendation is the best time to buy anything you think you want is now, specifically for this thread the most airplane you can afford.  Thinking you should buy a J now and upgrade to a Bravo later, in my opinion doesn't make sense.

Except for the known turbo and waste gate overhaul at 1300 hours, at least as relates to my experience, both turbo and NA Mooneys should have close to the same maintenance costs.  Assuming 17.5 gal/hr and 120 hours/yr flying, the fuel cost used to be 4 x 17.5 x 120 = 8,400/yr.  Currently that has increased to 6.5 x 17.5 x 120 = 13,650 or a 5,250 increase.  So, annual fuel costs are up 62.5% so far.  While that's a lot, in the overall cost of Mooney ownership it's just a little significant.

My philosophy has always been that the cost of the toys (things you want but don't have to have) should be no more than 10% of your financial net worth.  If that philosophy is followed, then the increase in cost of ownership as the result of what we're seeing now, while disappointing, should not have a large impact on their use.

The benefits of the turbo are so large in terms of greater capability that I personally wouldn't buy an airplane without it.

[carusoam]

Death by a thousand cuts….

Personal choice…

Where do you want to arbitrarily draw the line…

Do you have flight experience?

Do you have turbo experience?

 

There are four things that I would like to add to my plane…

1) Turbo

2) TKS

3) AC

4) A half dozen color screens…

 

These are things best decided upon when you buy the plane…

Adding them later is hellishly expensive, or not technically available for your plane…

Flying up and down the East coast… VFR, no turbo required… 

Add IMC in winter months… suddenly, turbo and TKS gets very interesting…

 

When it comes to drawing lines arbitrarily… without ownership experience…

Keep asking questions…

Turbos don’t Get expensive, until it is time to overhaul the engine… similar to having a few more cylinders to take care of… 

 

Don’t be afraid to start out with a normally aspirated engine…

Some people have actually flown a plane for a while to determine their next steps….

Getting too much airplane can put a dent in the ownership experience…

Yeah… a Falcon may be too much plane for me….

I could really fancy a new Acclaim…

They say it is turbo normalized… but it’s compression ratio is not the same as the NA engines…

whadda ya know… it’s turbo charged…. Sorta… 

Don’t get bogged down in all of the details….

Try to figure out where you want to be in a few years…

Get there at your pace, using your AMUs…

My old M20C flew nearly as fast as my M20R… for much less than half the costs…

 

So…

Ask yourself….   Self, do I want to…

fly in the flight levels?

Have a decent climb rate above 10k’?

 

If you answered yes to these questions… 

Go Turbo!

PP thoughts only, I didn’t go turbo…

Best regards,

-a-

 

[AGL Aviation]

In the rocket at least, the turbo is in such an annoying difficult to get at location, the the hours to r&r are greater than the cost of the overhaul itself.  So I would say at least double what you just quoted for cost.

Yes, r&r times can vary greatly as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[geoffb]

First airplane?

Pleasure flying, personal travel?

You alone, or you plus 1?

An E is actually the perfect airplane.  But they are getting old.  J is the second choice.  It's all about utility and utility costs money and complexity.  My E was significantly less expensive to own than my K.  You won't regret flying behind an IO360 Lycoming, or if you do, airplane ownership isn't for you.  150+ knots, 10-10.5 GPH block to block, you'll be blissfully be ignorant of what things can go wrong with cylinders, or exhaust system problems, baked engine mounts.  If you fly for fun, simple keeps it that way.

Edited March 18, 2022 by geoffb

[gevertex]

On 3/18/2022 at 12:31 PM, geoffb said:

First airplane?

Pleasure flying, personal travel?

You alone, or you plus 1?

An E is actually the perfect airplane.  But they are getting old.  J is the second choice.  It's all about utility and utility costs money and complexity.  My E was significantly less expensive to own than my K.  You won't regret flying behind an IO360 Lycoming, or if you do, airplane ownership isn't for you.  150+ knots, 10-10.5 GPH block to block, you'll be blissfully be ignorant of what things can go wrong with cylinders, or exhaust system problems, baked engine mounts.  If you fly for fun, simple keeps it that way.

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.