Buster1 Posted October 25, 2009 Report Posted October 25, 2009 I'm about 95% certain that I want/need a Turbo for my mission. I see a lot of turbo'd planes that have TKS, and as many without. TKS seems like a good safety net to have, but is it a requirement? I know there is a weight penalty with TKS too. What good is a turbo to get hi (mid teens for me) and above the wx if you don't have TKS?
Parker_Woodruff Posted October 25, 2009 Report Posted October 25, 2009 Quote: Buster1 I'm about 95% certain that I want/need a Turbo for my mission. I see a lot of turbo'd planes that have TKS, and as many without. TKS seems like a good safety net to have, but is it a requirement? I know there is a weight penalty with TKS too. What good is a turbo to get hi (mid teens for me) and above the wx if you don't have TKS?
Flybeech21 Posted October 25, 2009 Report Posted October 25, 2009 My opinion on turbos is that you should get one if you are going to be operating at fields with higher elevations. Getting over Wx is not the right reason. The 10 - 20 thousand range is one of the most dangerous areas of thunderstorms. If you are attempting to over-fly Wx (Thunderstorms) you need to do so at least 2000 feet above it. I dont think 2000 feet is enough if it is a thunderstorm you are overflying in that altittude range. A developing thunderstorm will reach up and slap you in this altittude range. At work, we fly usually between FL410 and FL450 and we still have to circumnavigate Wx during the summer. With that said, if TKS fits your weight requirements and you can afford it, go for it! I dont have "know Icing" capabilities and it seriously impacts when I can fly during the winter.
Buster1 Posted October 25, 2009 Author Report Posted October 25, 2009 Michael, My profile is me, the wife, and two small kids plus a few bags. Three hr legs max, in VFR and some light IFR flying. We are in the military and not yet settled down, but currently live in the Utah area, with plans to stay West in the future. As Kevin stated above, we will not be climbing above TS but plan on flying in the teens to get above any crud. If the crud goes into the twenties and we can't go around, we'll wait for a better day. But I'm worried about hauling the family precious cargo thru low icing layers getting down on an occasional approach in the wx. We will not be cruising in IMC.
Parker_Woodruff Posted October 25, 2009 Report Posted October 25, 2009 Quote: Buster1 Michael, My profile is me, the wife, and two small kids plus a few bags. Three hr legs max, in VFR and some light IFR flying. We are in the military and not yet settled down, but currently live in the Utah area, with plans to stay West in the future. As Kevin stated above, we will not be climbing above TS but plan on flying in the teens to get above any crud. If the crud goes into the twenties and we can't go around, we'll wait for a better day. But I'm worried about hauling the family precious cargo thru low icing layers getting down on an occasional approach in the wx. We will not be cruising in IMC.
mjc Posted October 25, 2009 Report Posted October 25, 2009 Quote: Buster1 Michael, My profile is me, the wife, and two small kids plus a few bags. Three hr legs max, in VFR and some light IFR flying. We are in the military and not yet settled down, but currently live in the Utah area, with plans to stay West in the future. As Kevin stated above, we will not be climbing above TS but plan on flying in the teens to get above any crud. If the crud goes into the twenties and we can't go around, we'll wait for a better day. But I'm worried about hauling the family precious cargo thru low icing layers getting down on an occasional approach in the wx. We will not be cruising in IMC.
wmrunyon Posted October 26, 2009 Report Posted October 26, 2009 Buster, I have TKS and feel it is a worthy option. It is interesting that i have used it more in the summer months than winter, even in the southern states. A lot of times it will be at or below freezing, flying in the teens and you run thru some higher layers. TKS is on, nothing is sticking to the aircraft, and life is good. Yes, there is a weight penalty, but i rarely fly with the tank full. So you can save a little weight if you plan appropriately. The opinions you need are from TKS equipped pilots....could you find one who has it and who would say, "naw, i would not do it" ? After a flight to Colorado and we had some minor icing on final (i called it frost, but my wife recalls we were "iced over"), Tanya insisted we get TKS. She is much more comfortable with IMC flights knowing we have this capability. And one last point, TKS is very effective; it will work if you need it. But be prepared and have it activated before entering into conditions below freezing. It takes a few minutes to pressurize the system and effectively get fluid thru the panels. Good luck in finding the right plane for you! Bill
mjc Posted October 26, 2009 Report Posted October 26, 2009 Quote: wmrunyon The opinions you need are from TKS equipped pilots....could you find one who has it and who would say, "naw, i would not do it" ?
fantom Posted October 26, 2009 Report Posted October 26, 2009 Quote: mjc I have to disagree, though I do think you are close.
Buster1 Posted October 26, 2009 Author Report Posted October 26, 2009 Michael, I see what you are getting at. Thanks for the thoughts from you, and everyone. This is just what I need to hear. I mean, I want TKS cause is sounds like a little safety net, but the cost, complexity, speed tradeoff is something I'm trying to get my head around...and if I'd even really need it. Here's my deal. I want to fly the family around the country to see friends and family as well as take weekend trips and the like. My kids are currently pretty young, and would probably NOT want to wear a mask or cannulas...so staying low may be my only option at times. I realize that this may be an issue if I HAVE to climb over mountains and such...so that's still something to look at. As they get older (and bigger) we may still fly as a family, but I do realize the space and weight limits in a Mooney as well. Kinda why I'm looking for a 252 Encore with the extra 10 HP and 200+ weight increase. I honestly think we'll fly mainly day VFR, but I worry about that low undercast that contains ice that ATC makes me hold in until setting up for the approach. I suppose that I could plan my mission on days where that wouldn't be a factor, and just stay on the ground if icing is forcast. I think I'd do that anyway. Flying into known ice with the fam is NOT the plan for me. But it's the unknown ice that comes out of nowhere on our day VFR trip that worries me.
Parker_Woodruff Posted October 26, 2009 Report Posted October 26, 2009 I hate to steer anyone away from Mooney, but it sounds like you'll be travelling with 4 people a lot. Your kids will be getting older. Unless you get an M20K encore, your useful load could be struggling. You're flying in the mountains, and often in a cold climate. Sounds to me like you need a Cessna Turbo 210 with FIKI or a Pressurized Cessna Turbo 210. Many of those are approved for FIKI and the useful loads won't make it such a stretch with your family. I'd make sure your load requirements are adequate before puruing a Mooney. While I think flying with partially filled tanks is fine, I always give myself an extra fuel reserve when flying in the mountains for many reasons. That might push you over the weight limits. A couple reasons for extra fuel off the top of my head: 1) Weather can be significantly different within places <50 miles apart. 2) Airports are farther apart than where I live in Texas.
MattS Posted October 26, 2009 Report Posted October 26, 2009 Quote: Buster1 Michael, I see what you are getting at. Thanks for the thoughts from you, and everyone. This is just what I need to hear. I mean, I want TKS cause is sounds like a little safety net, but the cost, complexity, speed tradeoff is something I'm trying to get my head around...and if I'd even really need it. Here's my deal. I want to fly the family around the country to see friends and family as well as take weekend trips and the like. My kids are currently pretty young, and would probably NOT want to wear a mask or cannulas...so staying low may be my only option at times. I realize that this may be an issue if I HAVE to climb over mountains and such...so that's still something to look at. As they get older (and bigger) we may still fly as a family, but I do realize the space and weight limits in a Mooney as well. Kinda why I'm looking for a 252 Encore with the extra 10 HP and 200+ weight increase. I honestly think we'll fly mainly day VFR, but I worry about that low undercast that contains ice that ATC makes me hold in until setting up for the approach. I suppose that I could plan my mission on days where that wouldn't be a factor, and just stay on the ground if icing is forcast. I think I'd do that anyway. Flying into known ice with the fam is NOT the plan for me. But it's the unknown ice that comes out of nowhere on our day VFR trip that worries me.
Buster1 Posted October 27, 2009 Author Report Posted October 27, 2009 Guys, great words, thanks. Matt, I am in the military, but the wife is not. I'm an F-16 pilot with 1200+ hrs, as well as another 700 as a T-38 inctructor and about 330 civilian hrs, with a glider rating too. The family IS on board for the trips and flying. I was about to pull the trigger on building a Lancair Legacy (something I still really want to do) when my wife said, she thought it would be better for us to get a 4-place airplane while the kids are younger so we could all travel. So I have been doing a lot of reading and research, and the Mooney seems like the plane for us. Eventually I think we would use it just for me and the wife as the kids outgrow it and begin to do more of their own things during their teenager years. I respect your thoughts on buying too much airplane if seldom used for the family. I also see us flying more whent he wx is good, so TKS may be something I can avoid getting to save some cost. Recently, after looking at finances more, I am gravitating toward a 231 vice a 252, but we'll see. Additionally, I just got "checked out" in a 172S up at Ogden. My first civilian flying in about 10 years! it was a blast and worth the high costs of some Dual time. The intent is to now get the family airborne a little and actually see if it works or not. If not, I may go back to the Lancair Legacy dream. But if they are really into the Cessna, I think a Mooney purchase wont be too far off. That being said, the wife now says she thinks we should just rent for the rest of our lives...arghhh!
mjc Posted October 27, 2009 Report Posted October 27, 2009 Quote: Buster1 I respect your thoughts on buying too much airplane if seldom used for the family. I also see us flying more whent he wx is good, so TKS may be something I can avoid getting to save some cost. Recently, after looking at finances more, I am gravitating toward a 231 vice a 252, but we'll see. Additionally, I just got "checked out" in a 172S up at Ogden. My first civilian flying in about 10 years! it was a blast and worth the high costs of some Dual time. The intent is to now get the family airborne a little and actually see if it works or not. If not, I may go back to the Lancair Legacy dream. But if they are really into the Cessna, I think a Mooney purchase wont be too far off. That being said, the wife now says she thinks we should just rent for the rest of our lives...arghhh!
MattS Posted October 27, 2009 Report Posted October 27, 2009 Quote: Buster1 Guys, great words, thanks. Matt, I am in the military, but the wife is not. I'm an F-16 pilot with 1200+ hrs, as well as another 700 as a T-38 inctructor and about 330 civilian hrs, with a glider rating too. Very cool. I respect your thoughts on buying too much airplane if seldom used for the family. I also see us flying more whent he wx is good, so TKS may be something I can avoid getting to save some cost. Recently, after looking at finances more, I am gravitating toward a 231 vice a 252, but we'll see. There are some EXCELLENT buys out there right now for 231s. Hell of an aircraft for the price. Additionally, I just got "checked out" in a 172S up at Ogden. My first civilian flying in about 10 years! it was a blast and worth the high costs of some Dual time. The intent is to now get the family airborne a little and actually see if it works or not. If not, I may go back to the Lancair Legacy dream. But if they are really into the Cessna, I think a Mooney purchase wont be too far off. That being said, the wife now says she thinks we should just rent for the rest of our lives...arghhh! Talk to her about the safety issue of renting. You dont know who flew it last, you dont control the maintenace, you dont want to risk her life in a plane that you don't know, blah blah.
FoxMike Posted October 27, 2009 Report Posted October 27, 2009 I am a little late into the conversation but I own a TLS with TKS and fly around the Rockies. I have owned several booted airplanes during the last twenty years and find the TKS to be a better system particularily at altitude. If you plan to stay out west a turbo airplane is a real plus (especially during takeoff when its really hot). I have owned 4 airplanes in the last 40 years, 3 have been turboed. If you can find a K or M model Mooney that is in good shape but without deice I would go for it. If you happen onto one with TKS so much the better. You do pay a price in performance to have TKS but on bad days it is worth the weight. Walt
Recommended Posts