To Turbo or Not - That is the question

greygoose

What are members thoughts regarding turbo versus non turbo aircraft. I do not live, and will rarely if ever operate from high altitude airfields. From what I have read, if you are below 8,000 - 10,000 ft., you get no benefit from a turbocharged engine and still have to pay higher costs for maintenance and inspections, plus have to manage the turbo carefully to avoid overheating. Would appreciate thoughts and experience.

Ben

Scott Sherer

Hi Ben,
My last four aircraft have been turbocharged. The first three were Seneca's with Continental TSIO-360's in them. My last plane was purchased in March of this year, a 1977 turbo Arrow III with the same engine as the Seneca, a Continental TSIO-360. Even though I'm a flat lander, I would have have nothing but a turbo aircraft. Over 30 years it has never cost me anything extra for engine maintenance over the non-turbo engine. But, the plane will climb at about your sea level rate to higher than you'll ever use and it will accelerate as you climb. The extra performance when you need it is there, including during the summer with high density altitude. Your engine performance is the same as in the winter. From me: two thumbs up on turbo charging.

RHidley

The Turbo Arrow III has a gross weight 150 pounds higher than the non turbo Arrow III so that means you can usually carry 4 adults with 50 gallons of fuel instead of 3. It's about 20 knots faster at sea level and up to 50 knots faster at 20,000 feet. It burns more fuel per hour but with the extra speed takes about the same amount of fuel to go somewhere. As Scott stated it does climb much better. Living out west we do need the extra performance to climb over mountains. But even while flying back east we stay high to get extra TAS, fuel savings and comfort being above most of the weather and/or turbulence. The turbo engine is six cylinders verses four in the non turbo which results in much less vibration.

Bob Hidley

Scott Sherer

Thanks for your comments, Bob

hueyseg

I am a bit late with this comment but I agree that the maintenance costs are negligible compared to NA Arrows. Weight increase and performance increase is not something to ignore. If your mission is cross country's like mine is, then the turbo makes a significant difference. The performance over 8k is greatly improved and when i fly, I like to fly high and I like that I can carry enough weight doing it. I should mention I have a bunch of hours in NA arrows for comparison.
I hear a lot of concerns about the maintenance cost of the turbo, but I have not experienced any added costs. When overhaul time comes on the turbo, it is just a few parts and a few hours. Not high cost unless the housing is compromised (which is not likely the way I fly the engine).
I get normal Arrow performance up to 5K. Then I start to notice improvements as I climb. 8500 I am at 140kts, 150kts at 10500 and 160kts at 13500. Haven't been higher yet but another TAIII hangared near mine flies regularly at 17K and he sees 170kts true regularly. That makes the turbo worth it to me and my mission.
The Conti TSIO 360 is smooth and quiet and with GAMI's, auto wastegate and pressurized mags, it runs very cool and efficient. I am at 1500 hrs and just had it bore scoped and all looked exceptionally well. It really is all about how you fly the engine. I keep TIT at 1580 or less and my cylinders are always 320 or less in cruise. Easy to control and I think makes the difference for engine life.
No need to be afraid of a Turbo Arrow. Another advantage is that the Turbo Arrows usually have not been used in flight schools so have less stress over their lifespans.

Scott Sherer

Roger that! After 7 TSIO-360's over 30 years, no turbo or engine expenses other than those expected. Reliable, safe, high performance.