Tell me why I don't want a t-tail turbo lance

cowman said:
Then I had to look... for not much more money I could be in a Lance instead and go faster. ?
Click to expand...

I dont have much to add, but this is how I got from looking at 182's and end up on P210's. Just a little more money and I could have...
Then I am working out how many kidneys I have to sell to make it work.
 
charheep said:
I dont have much to add, but this is how I got from looking at 182's and end up on P210's. Just a little more money and I could have...
Then I am working out how many kidneys I have to sell to make it work.
Click to expand...

That's why it's beneficial to look at what the mission truly requires. When you have an airplane that fits the mission poorly, you often end up finding that you won't want to fly it as much.

I love the 414, it fits our overall mission well. But I would also really like a Zenith 750 to go count cows.
 
Since there's little here to say turbos are "fine", I'll state that while I haven't flown a lot of turbo stuff, the airplanes I have flown that have turbos also had "detail oriented" owners who pointed out, early on in flying them, that there's no reason to flog the poor engines constantly -- and none had tons of mx issues with them.

They can be flown "reasonably" if you're the sort that can "keep your foot out of it" in a sports car, but that's not super common amongst pilots.

Certainly seems like the conscientious owners don't have huge problems, but they also know they don't have the things slamming up against overboost or blasting the wastegate wide open at every single moment of flight either.

"Climb it out at 30" and increase it 1" for every thousand feet as you go up... no reason to climb it at redline/36.5"..."
 
denverpilot said:
Since there's little here to say turbos are "fine", I'll state that while I haven't flown a lot of turbo stuff, the airplanes I have flown that have turbos also had "detail oriented" owners who pointed out, early on in flying them, that there's no reason to flog the poor engines constantly -- and none had tons of mx issues with them.

They can be flown "reasonably" if you're the sort that can "keep your foot out of it" in a sports car, but that's not super common amongst pilots.

Certainly seems like the conscientious owners don't have huge problems, but they also know they don't have the things slamming up against overboost or blasting the wastegate wide open at every single moment of flight either.

"Climb it out at 30" and increase it 1" for every thousand feet as you go up... no reason to climb it at redline/36.5"..."
Click to expand...

Part of it does depend on the airplane and its performance. In the 414, there were days this summer when a full power climb (2700/38") at gross was the only way to get any sort of reasonable climb rate. With inop AC, this was important. Hopefully by next year I have enough weight out, enough performance improvements, and functional AC to make a more standard 2500/35" climb power more possible.

It also depends on the engine. In the Chieftain we climbed at 40"/2400 RPM. Those engines are pretty durable.
 
Or buy an A36 and be done with it.
 
Dr. O said:
Tell me why I don't want a t-tail turbo lance
uuuh, maybe because you would like to remain solvent?
My mechanic worships the turbo owners in this area.
Says he prays every night for more turbo airplanes - something to do with a $100 an hour for shop time
Click to expand...
I pay $40 less per hour. Hopefully he spits on it for you. Makes the initial sting more tolerable.
 
James331 said:
When ever soneone buys a bo, and it's not a V tail, a puppy dies
Click to expand...


TCM also rubs thier hands together with a dubious half-cocked smile and whispers " we got another one on the hook. Up the prices again in the parts catalog."
 
Unit74 said:
TCM also rubs thier hands together with a dubious half-cocked smile and whispers " we got another one on the hook. Up the prices again in the parts catalog."
Click to expand...

Meh, my IO520 has been good to me, the IO550 I used to fly for work was great too, all the same. Just hard to not go TCM when you get into big bore.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Why?

A36 = faster, but more expensive to buy and less room.
Click to expand...

Because it's better ;-)

He wasn't talking about flying around 6 fat lumberjacks with axes and chainsaws in their luggage. The missions seem to be '2 couples + luggage' or '1 couple and dog crates'. For both of those, there is plenty of room in a A36.

'More expensive to buy' is probably correct on a model year or hours TBO remaining basis. On a 'total $$/year to own' basis, the turbo lance and a plain NA A36 are probably pretty close.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Part of it does depend on the airplane and its performance. In the 414, there were days this summer when a full power climb (2700/38") at gross was the only way to get any sort of reasonable climb rate. With inop AC, this was important. Hopefully by next year I have enough weight out, enough performance improvements, and functional AC to make a more standard 2500/35" climb power more possible.

It also depends on the engine. In the Chieftain we climbed at 40"/2400 RPM. Those engines are pretty durable.
Click to expand...

Yup. I know. If you need it, you need it. It's just a good reminder to think about what that MP gauge would read if there was no turbo at X altitude and think about the massive pressure diff you're demanding inside said engine if you do need it.

I don't think it's beyond the thinking capacity of most pilots to think like that, but I've never seen folks teach it in rentals but owners do teach it in their own airplanes. Be gentle and reasonable with the power unless you gotta go up and there's no other way. Below gross, most turbo'd stuff will fly just fine without being balls to the wall.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top