Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Turbo vs. Non-Turbo

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Thanks

Thanks for the info/opinions guys. I passed the info from this and the other threads on to my friend and from that and other similar advice from other sources he has decided to go with a non turbo aztec. He decided his mission didn't warrant the extra cost and possible trouble etc.-Kingaira90
 
guido411 said:
Sorry, can't give any average numbers on turb vs. Non-turbo costs. But I totally believe that a pilot that flies the engine rather than the airplane can have very good luck with a turbo. An impatient, no warm-up or cool-down throttle-jerker is going to buy a couple cylinders every year.

Guido's exactly right. Knowing how to run the turbo is what it's all about. And if you need high density-altitude performance or you're taking long trips where you can get up and run (and you don't mind wearing a nose-bag) then the turbo's the way to go. Otherwise, N/A.
 
If you dont routinely fly over 10,000 feet turbocharging is really of no benefit unless you like to fly fast (top of the green / 31-35" cruise).

Shock heating is just as important as shock cooling. I always let my 402's and Chieftains warm up at least in the green arc before takeoff power.

I used the two inches at first, then inch a minute rule. Plus about 10 minutes out I'd start inching the mixtures forward to aid even cooling.

I knew a guy who got TBO twice out of a set of GTSIO-520's on his 404. He'd let the airplane haul a$$ at 25-27" MP until a tight base, pulling gear and flaps to add drag to slow down, then over the numbers pull power all the way off. Technically he didnt shock cool them because by the time he pulled power to land there was no airspeed to cool the cylinders. He was taxiing.

Shock cooling requires airspeed, and in the descent pulling power and increasing airspeed at the same time is what kills engines. Shutting down engines immediately after landing is what kills turbos.
 
Last edited:
Once read a pilot report by Richard Collins on Aztecs that basically said Turbo was a great way to burn alot of fuel for no benefit on this airframe. He said because of the lack of pressurization or room to stretch legs no one would put up with masks or cannulae for several hours on a flight. Unless your friend needs it for high density takeoffs its a waste
 

Latest resources

Back
Top