My A36 Bonanza (IO550B) that I fitted with a factory ‘brand new’ engine in 2003 had 1200 hours on the engine when I sold it with nothing other than regular maintenance, having said that, I flew it 150 hours every year and always changed the oil every 25 hours and never ran it LOP.
It was still running beautifully (and flying the same, nothing flies like a Bonanza).
Flown as often as that and 25 hour oil changes I’m not surprised (did you get oil analysis as well?) I’m sure the next owner greatly appreciated your care.
Unfortunately many of these aircraft don’t make 100 hours a year and have oil changes at 50 hours.
Xlr8tr wrote:
(did you get oil analysis as well?)
Yes, every time, always good.
Post office initially refused to send it to the States so I had to modify the description from ‘Oil Sample’ to ‘Soil Sample’.
Xlr8tr wrote:
I would hope a group aeroplane such as the OP originally suggested would fly more than 200hrs/yr
Yes, absolutely. Would probably be IRO 250 – 300 hr/year.
Thanks for all the info, please keep it coming!
A normally aspirated late G2 would be the most viable aircraft to get you started, look for one with the glove box on the right hand side of the panel as opposed to the analogue gauges – much better electrical system.
As somebody said previously the Avidyne IFD is a significant improvement over the original Garmin 430. The S-Tec 55X autopilot is ok, ours is approved for LPV PBN etc, but the avidyne DFC90 is better.
The A/C is nice to have in the LA summers but it does cut down the useful load by approx 60lbs, however you probably wouldn’t need FIKI so there’s a good trade.
We have oxygen and it’s nice to have as even a NA will comfortably get you high enough to need it.
The biggest thing for me though flying out of somewhere like SMO is the chute, don’t listen to the doubters, when you’re over a big city in a single engine (as you can in the US) with your loved ones on board it’s great to have another option if you really need it.
Peter wrote:
Standard for TIO-540/TIO-550 to not make past 1000hrs before cracked cylinders.
IO-540/IO-550 should make TBO unless there is something funny going on.
Any idea how much of that has to do with low placard FF for takeoff? managing cruise mixture? or very cold descents?
Aren’t cold descents a myth?
The reason turbo engines crack cylinders is because the engines were not originally designed for sea level MP with perhaps half (FL180 = 500mb) the cooling air getting delivered. NA engines largely get away with this because the moment you lift off you are losing power, so while the takeoff stress is the same, they have a much easier life on average. There is no comparison between the cylinder stress profiles or, if you like, how hard a turbo engine’s cylinders get hammered and for hold long they get hammered on each flight.
Cylinder cracks via shock cooling are absolutely real but happen only if the CHT is high enough to start with.
How about FF at sea level on takeoff, some aircrafts should show 24GPH but they only show 22GPH on breaks, I am sure that matters a lot more than 12GPH vs 11GPH on cruise or 0GPH on descent?
One doesn’t achieve full fuel flow when on brakes. One needs a bit of airflow through the prop.
It is certainly true that on the IO540-C4 it pays to have the fuel servo adjusted to the very top of the band (25GPH) rather than 22GPH which has been seen ex-factory, as this delivers a lower climb CHT. Whether this translates meaningfully to operating cost is debatable. It makes a difference between say 360F and 400F. It will be a similar issue on the NA SR22. However getting the baffle seals done well makes as big a difference.
