Turbo for Little Hills

[spiderweb]

Coming up on 10 years with my IR, I have a question about turbo in the summer.

I'm a renter, and there are no turbos available to me. Despite that, I've been able to fly here in the East and Northeast usually without anything more than a delay, or early departure due to convection.

The last duel against the TCU was a month or so ago, and it made me wonder about turbo. I'd like to ask you about what I did, and what I am wondering.

Departing central MA, I encountered CU through which I flew with only a few bumps. But soon enough, and as expected, I was surrounded by TCU rising to about 12,000. I requested 12,000 and was granted that. For about an hour, I was able to fly around (ATC was great), but then both my eyeballs and NexRad showed me that I was flying among an area of scattered CBs mixed with those TCUs--typically late-Summer day.

I saw a way out, but I couldn't climb anymore. I requested 4,000 which was below all bases, and was granted that. My plan was to continue visually, and if unable, to request a landing at one of the many airports in central PA, where I was by that time. It worked fine, and I continued on, with minimal delay. Anyway, I was under no pressure to get home, and had those years of summer flying experience to guide me.

But, I thought, what if I were turbo? Would it have helped to request, say FL180? I am thinking that the CBs would have been obvious and avoidable, and at that level I could have topped and deviated.

I guess the question is this: does turbo give you more summer flying flexibility?

 

[wabower]

In theory? Sure. In real life, maybe once every ten years. First you must define the number of times you have faced this problem. Then you must determine the number of times you'll be trying to pick your way through the stuff rather than facing a line that you know is impenetrable and cause you to divert and go somewhere else. Then you must project the number of times that the tops will cooperate by being higher than a NA plane can climb but not higher than you can reasonably attain in the TC version. BTDT for more hours than I care to think about.

Coming up on 10 years with my IR, I have a question about turbo in the summer.

I'm a renter, and there are no turbos available to me. Despite that, I've been able to fly here in the East and Northeast usually without anything more than a delay, or early departure due to convection.

The last duel against the TCU was a month or so ago, and it made me wonder about turbo. I'd like to ask you about what I did, and what I am wondering.

Departing central MA, I encountered CU through which I flew with only a few bumps. But soon enough, and as expected, I was surrounded by TCU rising to about 12,000. I requested 12,000 and was granted that. For about an hour, I was able to fly around (ATC was great), but then both my eyeballs and NexRad showed me that I was flying among an area of scattered CBs mixed with those TCUs--typically late-Summer day.

I saw a way out, but I couldn't climb anymore. I requested 4,000 which was below all bases, and was granted that. My plan was to continue visually, and if unable, to request a landing at one of the many airports in central PA, where I was by that time. It worked fine, and I continued on, with minimal delay. Anyway, I was under no pressure to get home, and had those years of summer flying experience to guide me.

But, I thought, what if I were turbo? Would it have helped to request, say FL180? I am thinking that the CBs would have been obvious and avoidable, and at that level I could have topped and deviated.

I guess the question is this: does turbo give you more summer flying flexibility?

 

[spiderweb]

In theory? Sure. In real life, maybe once every ten years. First you must define the number of times you have faced this problem. Then you must determine the number of times you'll be trying to pick your way through the stuff rather than facing a line that you know is impenetrable and cause you to divert and go somewhere else. Then you must project the number of times that the tops will cooperate by being higher than a NA plane can climb but not higher than you can reasonably attain in the TC version. BTDT for more hours than I care to think about.

Cool. "Once in every ten years" saves me a lot of money.

I guess I'll chug along as normal!

 

[Clark1961]

I guess the question is this: does turbo give you more summer flying flexibility?

The turbo gives flexibility but if facing CB I end up staying low and dodging rain shafts/ugly looking stuff. I have climbed over TCU early in the day a couple times but that gets real interesting as that stuff can build faster than I can climb.

 

[Sac Arrow]

A turbo gives you an efficient cruise at high altitudes on long flights. It rarely gets you above the weather.

 

[bbchien]

Sac Arrow, there si a weather advantage. The turbo allows routine cruise above FL 170. At that level the thunderstorms are but 3-Mile Island chimneys sticking ouf of a bed of cotton below you.

Then you see and avoid, in hundred mile VMC.

 

[Clark1961]

Bruce - That's mostly something we don't see out west with our high base storms. Interesting to hear that climbing above is a viable option over the lowlands.

 

[bbchien]

Bruce - That's mostly something we don't see out west with our high base storms. Interesting to hear that climbing above is a viable option over the lowlands.

For your western systems, I'm usually at FL 210. That's been adequate over the Rockies for when I really really had to be there.

In the midwest, the floor is usually clear above 16,000. And in the winter we need above that.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

The Ovation has opened up some new altitudes to me, even without the turbo. The more important thing, IMO, is the factory built-in oxygen system to keep ME running well at high altitudes! I've had it to 16,000 a few times, and FL190 once - Pretty good for a normally aspirated bird!

It's definitely given me some weather flexibility, but more in terms of comfort than anything - I'd rather cruise on top at 16,000 and have visual contact with the clouds than watch the NEXRAD datalink at 12,000 in the muck. It's also nice, in the case of high OROCA's, to be able to have an extra 4-6,000 feet available below you to descend in case of an inadvertent icing encounter, 'cuz it sure isn't nearly as eager to go up as it is to go down once you get up that high.

Like many other things in aviation, a turbo can give you more options. Whether you're likely to be in a situation where you want to exercise them is an entirely different matter. Plus, if you don't fly 250+nm flights on a regular basis, you'll never really get high enough to make good use of the turbo on a non-pressurized bird.

 

[denverpilot]

It also gives you another tank to monitor. An O2 tank.

Doc has mentioned his giant O2 system before in other posts, and Kent's O2 system can last a while (?), but if you're doing this with the tiny tanks most folks have for portable O2 systems, monitor closely.

You'll end up dead fast with an empty O2 tank at these higher altitudes vs an empty fuel tank.

Just be aware you're adding a health risk that didn't exist before buying the turbo. The engine can now outperform your lungs.

 

[ebetancourt]

For several years I commuted from Nashville TN to Oklahoma City on a weekly basis in a Mooney M20K. I certainly went around the CBs more than once every 10 years, more like several times a year. Having said that it only worked eastbound, because the number of times I could go westbound in the flight levels was very rare. In addition, from 190 to 250 ATC is pretty flexible. "Deviate as necessary, direct {destination} when able" is a pretty common clearance in the middle of the country.

 

[bbchien]

I will tolerate the headwind, westbound, for the period of "picking my way through the line", but usually westbound I like 9 or 11,000.

If it's really awful, it's either VFR below the bottoms, or the airport lounge.

 

[aterpster]

For your western systems, I'm usually at FL 210. That's been adequate over the Rockies for when I really really had to be there.

In the midwest, the floor is usually clear above 16,000. And in the winter we need above that.

You've sure flown in different midwest TRW conditions that moi.

 

[bbchien]

Oh, you've done it too, Wally, just at FL 370.

 

[Gubbins]

My experiences from flying a couple of times this summer between Dallas and Destin...

12k-14k was enough to just lazily maneuver around the buildups for most of the trips. For one of the legs, I climbed to 17k and did a straight shot over the build ups with only one or two deviations around much bigger ones. But as was pointed out above, you have the additional hassle of oxygen (which I really don't like using). I like having the option but certainly not necessary.

 

[Ted]

With 2,000 hours of flying in all conditions and not avoiding the muck, I can only think of a handful of times that turbos would have truly helped me for summer or winter. I'd say stick to naturally aspirated.

Keep in mind that most factory turbo systems might get you up there, but not particularly happily due to lack of intercoolers. I can get to 15K in the 310 (naturally aspirated) quite happily. Otherwise, I stick lower where the air is denser and the engines are happier.

 

[wabower]

I think it's difficult for pilots to understand the relative "real-world" capabilities of NA vs. TC until they've done it for a while. Until then, the natural inclination for the NA's is to wistfully think "if only I had a turbo . . . " while the TC's are thinking "I couldn't get over that line of stuff in the space shuttle."

With 2,000 hours of flying in all conditions and not avoiding the muck, I can only think of a handful of times that turbos would have truly helped me for summer or winter. I'd say stick to naturally aspirated.

Keep in mind that most factory turbo systems might get you up there, but not particularly happily due to lack of intercoolers. I can get to 15K in the 310 (naturally aspirated) quite happily. Otherwise, I stick lower where the air is denser and the engines are happier.

 

[Ted]

I think it's difficult for pilots to understand the relative "real-world" capabilities of NA vs. TC until they've done it for a while. Until then, the natural inclination for the NA's is to wistfully think "if only I had a turbo . . . " while the TC's are thinking "I couldn't get over that line of stuff in the space shuttle."

I think that goes for most tools in aviation (or in the rest of life). The ones that I think provide the most value are (not necessarily in order):

-Radar (the real thing, not this Nexrad stuff)
-FIKI
-Second engine

Turbos fall out somewhere down the list. I'll take the Navajo as a good example. Sure, it'll maintain it's (rather pathetic) climb rate all the way up to 14,000 ft. I think the 310 would beat it to 14,000. Once it gets up there, now you've got a plane with no intercoolers that has profoundly unhappy turbos feeding air about the temperature of the sun into the engine. Go up to 17,000 ft or the flight levels and it gets even more pathetic.

In 150 hours in the Navajo, I flew it above 10,000 ft probably 5 times. Once was at 17,500 just to say I did it, once at 12,000 ft heading west bound with no wind on a ferry flight, and once at 14,000 ft solo. Add a few times at 11,000 ft in summer for temperature reasons.

It seems most people I know who have turbos rarely go above 10,000 ft.

 

[Everskyward]

If most of your flying is in the east with low DAs I don't think a turbo would be worth it. Sure you can climb higher with a turbo but at high altitudes you are not going to be climbing very fast and building clouds can climb faster than you can. BTDT.

 

[wabower]

Ditto on the BT. Dallas to Destin I was supremely confident that our B-200 King Air could beat a building Q from 190 to 330. Wrong. " . . . center, 48TS needs 10 left for weather."

If most of your flying is in the east with low DAs I don't think a turbo would be worth it. Sure you can climb higher with a turbo but at high altitudes you are not going to be climbing very fast and building clouds can climb faster than you can. BTDT.

 

[jnmeade]

I used to run my T210M at 10k-13k a lot, LOP, on 4.5 - 5 hour legs. I used a pulse-ox and was usually on O2 at 9k or above. Above about 14k, LOP started to not work as well. I didn't have a lot of time there so maybe I'm off base. I always like the turbo for running LOP and was very happy with it. I had it to 17k and didn't get much out of LOP there. Some of this is purely personal and not subject to logic. Oh, wait.....we're talking about aviation.

 

[Walt]

Ben,
I have been operating (owning) turbo airplanes for forty years. The turbo gives you flexibility in your operations. Sometimes it really helps and sometimes it is just along for the ride. On a few occasions you get a huge ground speed but most of the time only a little. I live in the Rockies but travel many places. I find on occasions where I need to punch some clouds at high altitude a lower angle of attack is a comforting feeling. You also encounter ice up high on occasion and the lower angle of attack and some reserve thrust is also comforting. You cannot always satisfactorily guess which way to go up or down for the best ride. I have often been at 17K wishing I was at 3K but you feel good that you have a choice.
The cost of operating a turbo system depends on how good a mechanic you have and how good your engine management skills are. Lots to learn about turbo management. Very few people know much about this subject so digging out good information is difficult and time consuming. Turbo airplanes are seldom rented for good reason. If you want a turbo, plan to buy it and fly it yourself. You probably could not charge someone enough rent to pay for the wear and tear on the engine that a renter will dish out.

 

[bbchien]

I am now running LOP at about 60% power. 18 gph total. Engines stay cool....these are engines # 5 and 6. I should make it to TBO.....

 

[Everskyward]

I live in the Rockies

So do I. For me, that would be the main reason for having a turbo. However, Ben lives on the east coast. Turbos give you more flexibility but the question is if it makes enough difference to justify the expense. As Wayne pointed out, sometimes a King Air can't climb fast enough or high enough, and sometimes a jet can't either.

 

[Ted]

The cost of operating a turbo system depends on how good a mechanic you have and how good your engine management skills are. Lots to learn about turbo management. Very few people know much about this subject so digging out good information is difficult and time consuming. Turbo airplanes are seldom rented for good reason. If you want a turbo, plan to buy it and fly it yourself. You probably could not charge someone enough rent to pay for the wear and tear on the engine that a renter will dish out.

This is very true. That said, turbo engines do tend to not last as long as their naturally aspirated counterparts, simply because you end up running higher average pressures and temperatures, even if you do things right.

You have outliers like Dave who ran the P-Baron hundreds of hours past TBO, which is very unusual. But the number of N/A engines that run hundreds (even thousands) past TBO is much, much higher.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

It also gives you another tank to monitor. An O2 tank.

Doc has mentioned his giant O2 system before in other posts, and Kent's O2 system can last a while (?), but if you're doing this with the tiny tanks most folks have for portable O2 systems, monitor closely.

You'll end up dead fast with an empty O2 tank at these higher altitudes vs an empty fuel tank.

Good point, but the O2 tank isn't something I need to monitor in-flight. So far, in all the times I've used it, I've barely made the needle move - Something like 1700-1650 PSI, and I think part of that may have even been due to the lowering temperatures this time of year. I certainly haven't been able to see a difference from the beginning to the end of a single flight.

Now, a small portable tank, sure. The larger built-in systems just need to be filled every so often and monitored between flights so you know roughly when you'll need to re-fill, but if I ever run out of O2 in this airplane, I didn't depart with nearly enough to begin with.

 

[spiderweb]

Sac Arrow, there si a weather advantage. The turbo allows routine cruise above FL 170. At that level the thunderstorms are but 3-Mile Island chimneys sticking ouf of a bed of cotton below you.

Then you see and avoid, in hundred mile VMC.

OK, that's what I was asking! It would be MUCH better for me to be up there seeing and avoiding those islands, rather than weaving and dodging in the bumps below the layer.

 

[spiderweb]

Bruce - That's mostly something we don't see out west with our high base storms. Interesting to hear that climbing above is a viable option over the lowlands.

On the East coast, bases can be REAL low. That's why in the NA airplanes I fly, if I can't top, I go low and below the layers, and not through anything more than green, because NexRad returns are old, old, old.

 

[spiderweb]

Ben,
I have been operating (owning) turbo airplanes for forty years. The turbo gives you flexibility in your operations. Sometimes it really helps and sometimes it is just along for the ride. On a few occasions you get a huge ground speed but most of the time only a little. I live in the Rockies but travel many places. I find on occasions where I need to punch some clouds at high altitude a lower angle of attack is a comforting feeling. You also encounter ice up high on occasion and the lower angle of attack and some reserve thrust is also comforting. You cannot always satisfactorily guess which way to go up or down for the best ride. I have often been at 17K wishing I was at 3K but you feel good that you have a choice.
The cost of operating a turbo system depends on how good a mechanic you have and how good your engine management skills are. Lots to learn about turbo management. Very few people know much about this subject so digging out good information is difficult and time consuming. Turbo airplanes are seldom rented for good reason. If you want a turbo, plan to buy it and fly it yourself. You probably could not charge someone enough rent to pay for the wear and tear on the engine that a renter will dish out.

Thanks for this!

 

[bbchien]

So be, up high it looks like this: The T-storms on this one are abeam my right wing, you can't see 'em in the pic, but this was the "way to clear".....

 

[Ted]

OK, that's what I was asking! It would be MUCH better for me to be up there seeing and avoiding those islands, rather than weaving and dodging in the bumps below the layer.

Bruce also lives in Peoria, meaning that he can more easily stay up high without complaints. Where you live in the Northeast, that is less the case.

As with most things people spend money on, those who have it can't figure out how they ever lived without it. Those who don't have it either want to spend the money on it, or figure that they don't need it.

 

[wabower]

Bruce also lives in Peoria, meaning that he can more easily stay up high without complaints. Where you live in the Northeast, that is less the case.

As with most things people spend money on, those who have it can't figure out how they ever lived without it. Those who don't have it either want to spend the money on it, or figure that they don't need it.

And some who drank the koolaide discovered they might shoulda axed more questions before writing the check.

 

[spiderweb]

So be, up high it looks like this: The T-storms on this one are abeam my right wing, you can't see 'em in the pic, but this was the "way to clear".....

That is a good picture, and what I wish I could see more often in the Summer!

 

[comanchepilot]

When I owned the Turbo Viking I was routinely at 15, 16 and 17k - occasionally FL190 or FL200. At the time I lived in the east, so I was not topping mountains or using it to offset the effects of density altitude on engine performance. I was using to top weather.

Not 12k TCU - because you know what? 12K TCU becomes FL450 TCU pretty quickly. If the atmosphere is unstable the clouds are starting to tower - they are not stopping generally at 16, or 18k but are going into the flight levels.

We probably used the turbo to get to 14 and 15k from mid-November to April to get on top of 90% of the weather systems in the east with precip. Sure - there was ice underneath us but if we lost the engine ice was going to be the last of our problems. We would leave South Carolina with 45F temps in the am into clear or sct skies - overfly a weather system and get to Connecticut which had clear and cold conditions - and ceilings were 1500-2000 enroute - so not scuddable really for 700nm - but at 15k we're sucking O2 happy as clams in CLEAR skies with only high cirrus - most winter systems top out any where from 12k - 15k.

That is how you use a turbo in the east where the density altitudes are not that negative.

Air Traffic wise NYC would always want you at 5000 on V1 - so we did not fly V1 - we would take V139 out over the water. The furthest distance was 33nm from the coast- and that was easily within gliding range from 15,000' except for the middle 5 miles of that offshore route - I took that 2 minute risk to shave time and make a flight possible. This kept us high heading Northeast usually seeing about 174-176kts TAS with 20-25kt tailwind components so we're routinely see 195-200 knots over the ground. . . the only issue with being in the mid-teens was over NYC - I even came back from Atlanta once and was at FL190 over the what is now the SFRA. Was nice not to have to worry about the airspace restriction - was vectored west of NYC to stay high - and began my descent for Windham out over Stewart in Newburgh NY.

 

[Sac Arrow]

Sac Arrow, there si a weather advantage. The turbo allows routine cruise above FL 170. At that level the thunderstorms are but 3-Mile Island chimneys sticking ouf of a bed of cotton below you.

Then you see and avoid, in hundred mile VMC.

Ahh I see. Atypical of our weather here. 6 to 10K will keep you above Valley and coastal clouds but if you need to make a mountain crossing in IMC, 17K will get you to some MEA's but you have to be a whole lot higher than that to get over the systems. (I won't make a mountain crossing at those altitudes in IMC. Too many planes have iced up and shredded themselves trying it.)

 

[aterpster]

Oh, you've done it too, Wally, just at FL 370.

Keep in mind I flew into Peoria a few times. At some point we had to leave the flight levels.

More significantly I flew in and out of STL and ORD more than a few times. I saw plently of days where we hade to deviate in IMC at 370 because the "haze" between cells prevented visual avoidance. Pick your altitude between 370 and the planet. Different days, different situations. Usually the nasty stuff provided little opportunity for visual avoided.

OTOH flying a coast to coast non-stop 200 miles away from the stuff we could sometimes see the ground, other times be barely on top of the "haze." I suppose on some of those days with the "haze" someone may be in the clear at 16,000.

I also know that TRWs over the Rockies in the summer the best ride is down around FL 240, picking your way through with a good radar. That technique doesn't work much east of Denver.

My preference in a light airplane would be to stay on the ground unless the ceilings were fairly high and the stuff was scattered, and I was heading away from it all.

 

[bbchien]

Bruce also lives in Peoria, meaning that he can more easily stay up high without complaints. Where you live in the Northeast, that is less the case.

N90 wants you down, below once you get east of Allentown. Last spring I was repeatedly asked to descend into an ice deck in eastern PA, tops at about 17,300 until I said, "I have repeatedly asked for higher for ice, and now you are descending me into it. This is NOT in the interest of aviation safety."

Then came on a new voice, and cleared me to 190.

As with most things people spend money on, those who have it can't figure out how they ever lived without it. Those who don't have it either want to spend the money on it, or figure that they don't need it.

Quite true

 

[wsuffa]

Bruce also lives in Peoria, meaning that he can more easily stay up high without complaints. Where you live in the Northeast, that is less the case.

True, unless you're willing to fly a long way out of your way.... (or you're willing to take the Shark Route).

That said, I have found the turbo to be useful to me when flying in the midwest and Texas. In part for the reasons Bruce mentions (no you can't always fly over stuff, and some of the major lines of storms you just need to be on the ground) - it's easier to see where the buildups are. In part, it's less traffic at 15,000+ so you're less likely to find the one-trip-per-year guys who don't maintain a good traffic watch (and at the same time it's a bit easier to get direct from ATC). And in part, it tends to be less bumpy up there compared to down low (making it a bit easier to take a relucatant passenger).

Turbos are not for everyone. I am glad to have mine, but given the missions I am flying at the present moment, I might choose NA. Given the circumstances I had when I purchased my plane, Turbo was the right way to go. YMMV.

 

[Ted]

The point that Wayne and I are more advocating isn't that turbos aren't useful (I've been trying to figure out how to put them on the 310), it's that, for most of us, the use is limited. I'll be hoenst and admit that even for me, doing the kind of flying I do, the use is limited.

Were we shopping for a plane now, there is no doubt we'd be looking at turbocharged options. Those who've flown them and point out the positives are correct in their positives. But one must weigh those positives against the cost aspects, as with any other decision. If money isn't any object, then of course it doesn't matter.

 

[aterpster]

The point that Wayne and I are more advocating isn't that turbos aren't useful (I've been trying to figure out how to put them on the 310), it's that, for most of us, the use is limited. I'll be hoenst and admit that even for me, doing the kind of flying I do, the use is limited.

To me, their biggest value is for those who do a lot of flying into and out of inter-mountain west airports.

Sucking on O2 any longer than necessary...well....it sucks. But, getting off safely in July at a place like GWS (or MMH) is a whole lot of safety.