Turbo or no turbo

[ChristianGodin]

I am flying a 201 with a new IR licence. I am living in east cost and fliying mainly in the east. I feel the need of a turbo to fly over bad weather. When I read about turbo everyone says that to fly in the east a turbo is needless but never mention the advantage to fly high to overcome bad weather. Does it make sence?

[201er]

Not when you analyze it next to the cost

[pjsny78]

I have a lot of time flying in the east in my "J" model. I can honestly say I have never had the need for one. The Appalachians for the most part are like hills. As far as weather goes. My celling is close to FL190. It may take me a while to get up there but again I have never had the need. I just made a cross country trip over the Rockies and had to deal with airports in excess of 6k ft. I think a turbo out there is a must. Again I never have needed or thought of one on the east coast. Plus you have the added cost of maintenance.

[DonMuncy]

I doubt you will be able to find an economic justification, but you may also be hard pressed to economically justify a Mooney or any other airplane either. with that said, it is really nice to be able to fly at higher altitudes even in non-mountainous areas. On several flights I have gone up to 13 or 14,000 to be able to see the weather, and found the clouds continuing to build up. It is nice under those circumstances to be able to effortlessly go up to 16 or 17,000, without having to deviate in order to get over them. Bottom line, I doubt you need a turbo, but they are nice.

[Piloto]

Like most things in life there are trade off. A turbo will give you faster climb rate to altitude, a faster speed at altitude, also a higher cruising altitude. The drawbacks are mostly maintenance related and there is no advantage on flights below 10,000ft. I did a search on Flightware tracking website and found that over 90% of the turbo planes flights are below 11,000ft. The ones that were over 12,000ft were over 600nm trips. For trips of less than 300nm is impractical to fly at the flight levels because you will be climbing and descending a considerable time and wasting additional fuel. I am glad I have an M20J because i have friends with turbo planes and several times they had to cancel a trip due to a turbo problem. Myself I will only consider a turbo with titanium blades (like on turbine engines) or a supercharger. Current piston turbo blades are made of steel alloys which are prone to erosion much quicker than titanium. Cruise missiles jet engines use steel alloys like turbos but you do not need a high TBO for this application (100hrs).

José

[PTK]

As usual Jose's wisdom shines! 

You have the 201, the most efficient airplane in its class! You don't need a turbo unless you will regularly fly it up high. I think the mistake people make is they think a turbo is a "faster" airplane. Yes it is at a huge huge cost and only up high. If not flown regularly up high the turbo advantage disappears but the huge costs remain!

But I would answer your question by asking what is the length of your trip legs. Depending on this, I would instead look into long range tanks for your 201. This is an excellent mod. It extends the cruising phase of your trip which is exactly where the 201 performs its magic! Your 201 will become that much more efficient in cruise by eliminating the intermediate fuel descents and climbs. 

[aviatoreb]

Quote: DonMuncy

I doubt you will be able to find an economic justification, but you may also be hard pressed to economically justify a Mooney or any other airplane either. with that said, it is really nice to be able to fly at higher altitudes even in non-mountainous areas. On several flights I have gone up to 13 or 14,000 to be able to see the weather, and found the clouds continuing to build up. It is nice under those circumstances to be able to effortlessly go up to 16 or 17,000, without having to deviate in order to get over them. Bottom line, I doubt you need a turbo, but they are nice.

[triple8s]

I have a friend who has a 231 (w/out intercooler) and he never goes over about 14 because he says it will run too hot. If I couldnt get over 14 I wouldnt have it. Another thought, what is the serv. ceiling for more powerful NA Mooneys or even twins for that matter? Would an Ovation, Missile, a Screaming Eagle high a much higher service ceiling? What about twins? Do NA twins get up there higher than most singles? My CFI has a Turbo Arrow that has an intercooler and he says it will go to 16k no problem.

[Parker_Woodruff]

Getting above the WX is a huge consideration, especially over the pesky Florida summer convective buildups that plague us from May-Sept or so.

 

Another reason for a turbo is to cut down on cross country  flight time.

Yesterday I spent most of my flight getting 185 KTAS out of a 220 horse airplane burning 11.9-12.2 GPH

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N252BH/history/20120310/2200Z/KGGG/KLAL

[gjkirsch]

There have been a lot of comments on the higher cost of having a turbo. I have owned 4 turbo Mooney's and have yet to have any repairs to the turbo or related plumbing.  You will use more fuel down low compared to a non turbo plane but that is about it.  The only expensive repairs that I have had that could be potentially linked to the turbo is the exhaust system.  However I only had those in the Bravo and not the K.  I think the exhaust sytem on the Bravo is a weak point.  I think cylinders are weak points on Continential engines and the turbo may make that worse.

It is not hard for me to justify a turbo.  I like the speed at altitude and my trips are long enough to benefit from it.  Besides, I already had a large void between my ears to buy a plane in the first place, it was not any stretch to make it a turbo.

[Piloto]

You can do turbo numbers in an Ovation with less stress on the engine. Look at the MP, CHTs and fuel flow. Makes you feel very comfortable over the North Atlantic.

 

José

[Piloto]

[John Pleisse]

I have poured a life time of resources into a normally aspirated plane. Don't mind it, but Mooney turbos are the way to go IMHO and I think the discussion of "if" should become "which one". You have all kinds of options. Ray Jay's on older E and F models with great pricing, 231, 252, Encore, Bravo, 231-Rocket, M20 Turbos. Just never go near a Bullet conversion. There are still a few left out there.

[jetdriven]

What's the overhaul cost and TBO interval on a IO-360-A3B6D from a 201?   Nautical miles per gallon?

What is it for a TSIO-360?

What about a TIO-540?

I think turbos are awesome, as long as you can stomach the overhaul bill when it comes due.

Quote: gjkirsch

There have been a lot of comments on the higher cost of having a turbo. I have owned 4 turbo Mooney's and have yet to have any repairs to the turbo or related plumbing.  You will use more fuel down low compared to a non turbo plane but that is about it.  The only expensive repairs that I have had that could be potentially linked to the turbo is the exhaust system.  However I only had those in the Bravo and not the K.  I think the exhaust sytem on the Bravo is a weak point.  I think cylinders are weak points on Continential engines and the turbo may make that worse.

It is not hard for me to justify a turbo.  I like the speed at altitude and my trips are long enough to benefit from it.  Besides, I already had a large void between my ears to buy a plane in the first place, it was not any stretch to make it a turbo.

[aviatoreb]

Quote: N4352H

I have poured a life time of resources into a normally aspirated plane. Don't mind it, but Mooney turbos are the way to go IMHO and I think the discussion of "if" should become "which one". You have all kinds of options. Ray Jay's on older F models with great pricing, 231, 252, Encore, Bravo, M20 Turbos. Just never go near a Bullet conversion. There are still a few left out there.

[jetdriven]

When I got a job flying the 1900D, I thought, man! 25,000 ft ceiling we can get above almost any weather!  Turns out, it really didnt. When I got to the CRJ, I thought, man! FL360 gets above most any weather!  Wrong again.  The 747 has a certified altitude of 45,100'.  Guess what, there are still some bumpy clouds that go much higher than that.  I give up.

[aviatoreb]

Quote: jetdriven

When I got a job flying the 1900D, I thought, man! 25,000 ft ceiling we can get above almost any weather!  Turns out, it really didnt. When I got to the CRJ, I thought, man! FL360 gets above most any weather!  Wrong again.  The 747 has a certified altitude of 45,100'.  Guess what, there are still some bumpy clouds that go much higher than that.  I give up.

[DaV8or]

Also consider the increased cost of a turbo at annual.

[Jerry 5TJ]

Quote: aviatoreb

What about when you got that job flying the space shuttle?  Surely then you finally topped the weather? :-)

[John Pleisse]

Quote: aviatoreb

Don't forget the rocket....

[M016576]

Quote: pjsny78

I have a lot of time flying in the east in my "J" model. I can honestly say I have never had the need for one. The Appalachians for the most part are like hills. As far as weather goes. My celling is close to FL190. It may take me a while to get up there but again I have never had the need. I just made a cross country trip over the Rockies and had to deal with airports in excess of 6k ft. I think a turbo out there is a must. Again I never have needed or thought of one on the east coast. Plus you have the added cost of maintenance.

[AndyFromCB]

Quote: jetdriven

When I got a job flying the 1900D, I thought, man! 25,000 ft ceiling we can get above almost any weather!  Turns out, it really didnt. When I got to the CRJ, I thought, man! FL360 gets above most any weather!  Wrong again.  The 747 has a certified altitude of 45,100'.  Guess what, there are still some bumpy clouds that go much higher than that.  I give up.

[AndyFromCB]

Quote: jetdriven

When I got a job flying the 1900D, I thought, man! 25,000 ft ceiling we can get above almost any weather!  Turns out, it really didnt. When I got to the CRJ, I thought, man! FL360 gets above most any weather!  Wrong again.  The 747 has a certified altitude of 45,100'.  Guess what, there are still some bumpy clouds that go much higher than that.  I give up.

[AndyFromCB]

Quote: M016576

 

I've been trying to dispell the myth that a "turbo is a must" in the rockies on this board for a while... and here it is again!  I don't know why Mooney pilots seem to think that you need a turbo any time you get west of the mississippi...

anyway, here I go again:  I learned to fly in a C172 (NA) at an airfield with a field elevation of 5000MSL in the heart of a valley in the rockies.  lots of NA aircraft fly out of there... and fly north into the sawtooths north of stanley, ID.  Many are much smaller aircraft than a mooney, and they do just fine.

I fly my M20J in the rockies and sierras and everything inbetween on a regular basis, and I've never had to cancel a flight due to the lack of a turbocharger.  In fact, I've never said to myself "self... sure would be nice to have a turbo charger right now!"  I find that the fields that I have visited (and that most mooney pilots would visit.. with the exception of Piperpainter (he's crazy!)... are not only paved, but more than long enough to accomodate a NA mooney on a high DA day).  I make fairly regular trips to mammoth in the summer time, and that DA can climb above 10000msl.

Flying in the rockies isn't about having a turbo or not having a turbo... It's about mountain flying, and knowing how to plan and fly in that environment.  Just like anything else in aviation, it's a matter of training and proficiency..

 

OK, I'm off my soap box now...

Oh, and for Eric- I have a N.A. M20J... because N.A. M20J's are better    (oh, and I can't afford a turbo!!! hah!)

 

[Jeev]

Very well said Astel I could not agree more that it makes things easier and more comfortable but i would argue that flying a N/A aircraft safely and whithin its limits (200 + below GW) when high alt or DA will be as safe as a turbo. If you HAVE to go in to a place like KJAC IFR unless your plane is FIKI most of the time it doesn't matter if you have a turbo or not your not going into a mt airport safley IFR in IMC without FIKI.

I also fly over the rockies and to mammoth a lot and never canceled a mountain flight due the lack of a turbo. I have canceled multiple mountain flights due to high winds and other weather that I would have still canceled if I had a turbo. Disclaimer: I also can't afford a turbo ha ha..

My vote is to keep your J.  I went through your same dilemma about 6 months ago. I live in Vegas and regularly fly to Denver and all over the SW, on a cross country I am rarely cruising below 8000ft and go up to 15k all the time when flying over the southern end of the Rockies.  I thought a turbo would give me more capability crossing the Rockies "more direct" from Vegas to Denver but doing the calculations I would only save about 40min to an hr taking routes that I am comfortable with over the rockies in a piston single.

Now I am not discounting the benifits of a turbo and if $$ was not an issue I would love a 252/encore but the facts that I finally have my J dialed in just the way I want it, I am comfortable with its performance in the 10k-15k ranges and I don't want to feed a turbo convinced me to stay with the ultra efficient J.

The one thing that a turbo would really help me with is high DA but you will probably not be dealing with that in the east as much as I do. Even then high DA just takes a little more planning and calcs.

What ever you do you are golden since the 252 / encore is arguably the best Mooney ever built and the J is the best Mooney when small compromises in speed / performance are made in favor of efficiency and cost.