Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Turbo versus non turbo

Alexis wrote:

With the SR22 there is very little difference up to 10.000 feet … the NA climbs better up to 8000 with the same payload due to lower weight. No difference in t.o. performance at typical elevation.

Are you taking into account the fuel flow for climb ?

The dual turbo TSIO-550 used in the SR22T (and TTx/ Columbia 400) has a significantly higher fuel flow in climb, figure 34 – 36 Gal/h when compared to the NA IO-550.

FAA A&P/IA
LFPN

Yes, of course – the fuel flow will be much higher. I was only talking about performance. For the typical IFR flights I do the NA is absolutely sufficient. It’s the 310 hp that achieve that.

Michael wrote:

Are you taking into account the fuel flow for climb ?

The dual turbo TSIO-550 used in the SR22T (and TTx/ Columbia 400) has a significantly higher fuel flow in climb, figure 34 – 36 Gal/h when compared to the NA IO-550.

I do not climb at that fuel flow. I reduce to something like 78% BHP for the climb, burning 26 gph @120-130 KIAS

For the purpose of comparing the fuel economy of the TSIO550 with IO550 I used the Autorouter to compute the route from Pontoise to Perpignan with a LC41 and NA SR22.

LC41 limited to FL160, 70% BHP
LFPT N0188F160 MONOT R161 CFA A27 SIJAN SIJAN11 LFMP

Route distance:
410.0 NM (direct: 383.6 NM, overhead 7%, 21.2 NM for SID/STAR)
Time route:
2:13, no wind: 2:16 (direct: 1:46)
Trip fuel: 40 USG

SR22 limited to FL160, 65% BHP
LFPT N0173F100 MONOT R161 CFA A27 SIJAN SIJAN11 LFMP

Route distance:
410.0 NM (direct: 383.6 NM, overhead 7%, 21.2 NM for SID/STAR)
Time route:
2:26, no wind: 2:26 (direct: 2:13)
Trip fuel: 38 USG

LC41 altitude range up to service ceiling FL250, 70% BHP
LFPT N0202F210 LATRA/N0213F240 UM133 LAKOB UY27 SIJAN SIJAN11 LFMP

Route distance:
411.3 NM (direct: 383.6 NM, overhead 7%, 21.2 NM for SID/STAR)
Time route:
2:05, no wind: 2:09 (direct: 1:46)
Trip fuel: 43 USG

LC41 altitude range up to service ceiling FL250, economy cruise (55% BHP)
LFPT N0197F210 LATRA/N0205F240 UM133 LAKOB UY27 SIJAN SIJAN11 LFMP

Route distance:
411.3 NM (direct: 383.6 NM, overhead 7%, 21.2 NM for SID/STAR)
Time route:
2:06, no wind: 2:11 (direct: 1:50)
Trip fuel: 39 USG

So the SR22 ends up using a little less fuel, and the LC41 is slightly faster. So what?

Last Edited by Aviathor at 27 Sep 17:28
LFPT, LFPN

So, to revive the thread and summarize the wisdom above @achimha says pilot-controllable cowl flaps are great for controlling engine cooling at altitude (14) and that his R182RG with said cowl flaps has no significant issues with the turbocharged engine, apart from some additional welding required on the exhaust stack.

Others (@Peter, @Alexis) claim, based on experiences of others, that the turbocharged versions of their respective types (TB20, SR22) are significantly less reliable and more expensive to maintain (cracked exhaust, cylinders).

I have no experience whatsoever, but I’ve read that the turbocharged engine in the Arrow III does tend to overheat and overboost without aftermarket wastegates and that the turbocharged Continental TSIO-360-GB in the early M20K’s is troublesome, but the later version (-LB) solves the issues, and that the -MB version in the 252 is even better. Alas, that’s what I’ve read, and in-person up-close accounts would be great. Some 2nd hand knowledge from friends operating a Lycoming powered C182 confirms that the turbo, when not abused, does not generate significant additional maintenance, but does provide extra performance at the cost of additional fuel (they run ROP).

Can others, who fly turbocharged planes, also chime in with the good, the bad and the ugly? What is the one best turbocharged piston single for travelling?

tmo
EPKP - Kraków, Poland

According to the maintenance logs my 850 hrs TTSN TSIO550 (twin turbo) has never had any turbo- or exhaust-related issues. The last compressions were all in the 70-s. The inside of the cylinders look perfect. The plugs are clean as whistles.

LFPT, LFPN

Best turbocharged piston single for travelling – either the Rocket or the Acclaim, hands down.

tmo wrote:

friends operating a Lycoming powered C182 confirms that the turbo, when not abused, does not generate significant additional maintenance, but does provide extra performance at the cost of additional fuel (they run ROP).

I can confirm that too. I have never had a problem with the engine (nearly 900 h) but I take care of keeping the temps well in the green, TIT never exceed 1630/50 ROP.
I do not know which engine is the best but in my opinion the automatic waste gate in my TIO 540 with Rajay turbocharger helps a lot.

Berlin, Germany

At 900h this is as expected. When you are at 2000 and on the original cylinders, that would make a great data point. So far I have never seen a proven case.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Another observation, if I may – seems like 8 out of 10 turbocharged planes I look at on Planecheck do not have any engine monitoring system to speak of (factory fitted single probe EGT/CHT gauges which are likely inop anyhow not withstanding). How can anyone expect not to overdo it without any feedback on engine operating conditions? Such lack of instrumentation leads me to heavily discount any TBO allegedly remaining on the engine. Am I correct in being cautions, or too much of an armchair forum theory jockey (yes, I do notice the irony, thanks)?

As a secondary data point, US based planes seem to be 50/50, or even slightly biased towards having at least a basic EDM fitted.

Last Edited by tmo at 01 Nov 09:48
tmo
EPKP - Kraków, Poland

Virtually all TR182 make TBO (2000h), usually with some work on the exhaust in between but that is irrelevant financially. Some of them require a turbocharger overhaul, again pretty irrelevant at 3000 € or so. Mine is at 1200h now without any signs of fatigue. Compression 6x 78/80. Instrumentation is absolutely crucial because otherwise you just don’t know what you are doing.

I bet that everybody saying that they don’t need or want a turbo would take the opposite position if they had had one. It transforms the aircraft and it gives you power that you can but don’t have to use. Obviously it helps if your aircraft needs less than 350hp to takeoff and you operate it at 40" all the time. The TR182 is identical to the R182 (identical engine, turbo was added by Cessna, not Lycoming) and I can fly it like a R182.

I would never ever consider a travel machine without turbo.

Sign in to add your message

Back to Top