STOL twins

[flyingcheesehead]

Why would you want to "turn them off"?

First of all, by having them "off" earlier in the flight, for most of your descent most likely, they'd already be cooled off when you landed and you wouldn't need to idle at all before shutdown to prevent coking the oil in the turbos.

Second, on a training flight where you're going to be doing engine-outs, you could avoid turning them on to begin with, once again preventing the oil in the turbo from cooking when you (er, your CFI) fail(s) the engine.

 

[d.grimm]

Okay, Five pages and nobody mentions a Beech 18? We had a AT-11 (B18) operate out of 2500 ft grass with no problem. I think $150,000 would buy a really nice one, and I would have one in a minute "IF" I could afford it.
Dave

 

[alaskaflyer]

Okay, Five pages and nobody mentions a Beech 18? We had a AT-11 (B18) operate out of 2500 ft grass with no problem. I think $150,000 would buy a really nice one, and I would have one in a minute "IF" I could afford it.
Dave

I think someone else mentioned it. It received the conversation in this thread it deserved, I think

 

[Everskyward]

First of all, by having them "off" earlier in the flight, for most of your descent most likely, they'd already be cooled off when you landed and you wouldn't need to idle at all before shutdown to prevent coking the oil in the turbos.

I never had any problem with this at all.

Second, on a training flight where you're going to be doing engine-outs, you could avoid turning them on to begin with, once again preventing the oil in the turbo from cooking when you (er, your CFI) fail(s) the engine.

Or this either, not that any of the airplanes were used for that much training other than some checkouts.

I think you have the idea that turbos are much more delicate than they really are. I never once wished that any of the turbocharged airplanes I flew has a method by which I could turn them off manually, and I have far more time in turbocharged piston airplanes than normally aspirated ones.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I never had any problem with this at all.

Or this either, not that any of the airplanes were used for that much training other than some checkouts.

I think you have the idea that turbos are much more delicate than they really are. I never once wished that any of the turbocharged airplanes I flew has a method by which I could turn them off manually, and I have far more time in turbocharged piston airplanes than normally aspirated ones.

Maybe because the local Seneca II spends an awful lot of time in the shop. It has no engine monitor, but I'd hate to see what happens to the engine temps when you cut one.

Or it could be because I'm a control freak.

What planes were you flying? What types of wastegate systems did they have? What operational considerations were there for dealing with the turbos? Did the engines make TBO?

 

[Everskyward]

What planes were you flying? What types of wastegate systems did they have? What operational considerations were there for dealing with the turbos? Did the engines make TBO?

I was flying a C-210, various C-206s and a C-320 all with Continental TSIO-520 engines. The turbos had automatic wastegates, the engines had no monitors except for a single probe EGT and the engines generally made TBO and beyond (at one job I flew the same two airplanes for 11 years). I don't really remember any strict operational considerations other than not to go immediately to idle from cruise when starting the descent, in fact I didn't do descents at idle at all that I remember. We really pushed the capabilities of the turbo too, often taking the airplanes into the low 20s, sometimes right on top of the airport where we would later be landing.

 

[TangoWhiskey]

Hey, that'd work! I'd even take a couple of TIO-541s or TIGO-541s. 425 hp a side on an Aztec... yummy...

Don't you get an employee discount?

 

[Trapper John]

I was flying a C-210, various C-206s and a C-320 all with Continental TSIO-520 engines. The turbos had automatic wastegates, the engines had no monitors except for a single probe EGT and the engines generally made TBO and beyond (at one job I flew the same two airplanes for 11 years). I don't really remember any strict operational considerations other than not to go immediately to idle from cruise when starting the descent, in fact I didn't do descents at idle at all that I remember. We really pushed the capabilities of the turbo too, often taking the airplanes into the low 20s, sometimes right on top of the airport where we would later be landing.

Working airplanes seem to have better engine life, but did you spend much time above 65% power? Seems the people I know that don't curse their big-bore turboed Continentals keep it at/below that, and the ones getting theirs topped at 600 hours are the ones that really flog them...


Trapper John

 

[Ted]

Don't you get an employee discount?

Seeing as we don't support those engines anymore... no.

 

[Everskyward]

Working airplanes seem to have better engine life, but did you spend much time above 65% power?

Yes, pretty much so. With mapping the goal isn't to go fast, if anything it's to conserve fuel so you can stay up longer.

 

[el con]

Some of the aircraft brought up in this thread won't meet the purchase price requirement. What about an early model Cessna 421.

There's a 421 at our airport and that thing uses most of 3900 ft up and down. Are we talking Cessna here? Or are there versions that perform better? I think this one has geared engines.
Really a 421 off grass/ shortfield??

 

[el con]

I wouldn't say all manner of stories about Seneca IIs. They are lousy on short grass strips owing to the lack of propellor clearance with the struts fully compressed. I have about seven inches in that condition.

That having be said, a 420 horsepower Twin Cherokee, operated at 1000 undergross, has a lot of power, and low wing loading, and does pretty well. I have done 6Y9 it's first year (2000 feet with trees) and do Gaston's (not short, but obstructed) annually. But That IS ALL for short and obstructed. Both strips are meticulously maintained.

Dr. Bruce!! 6Y9 was only 1850' that first year. That was awesome to see you come in and go out, looked easy but I know you were extremely light.
Also "thank you" for the "meticulously maintained" comment. The new posted picture of 6Y9 www.sidnaw.org was Diz shooting pics out of your plane. Thanks Again for the steady approach.

 

[gismo]

There's a 421 at our airport and that thing uses most of 3900 ft up and down. Are we talking Cessna here? Or are there versions that perform better? I think this one has geared engines.
Really a 421 off grass/ shortfield??

They all have geared, turbocharged engines. Gross weight can have a huge effect on takeoff distance plus it's common for operators to keep the climb shallow on departure in an attempt to keep the engines cooler.

 

[el con]

They all have geared, turbocharged engines. Gross weight can have a huge effect on takeoff distance plus it's common for operators to keep the climb shallow on departure in an attempt to keep the engines cooler.

I understand, but Alaska as a hauler? Don't most of those guy's cram them full of people ,moose heads , barrels of fuel,bags of mail.
I just don't picture the 421 fitting the image, I thought I heard short and turf. There was an old DC-3 fixer upper sitting down on Mayaguana in the Bahamas a few years ago that would be better