Turbo Cirrus

Because the new turbo pilot might think - Now that I have a Turbo, instead
of staying down low out of the clouds, or even better, staying home, I know
that if I encounter Ice with my new turbo I can "safely" climb up through
the generally 3000' thick (at the most) layer of icing conditions and be
safe.... In other words, if I encounter Ice, I can climb out of it fast &
strong with a turbo plane, so more pilots decision makings may be a little
more adventurous.

Another reason might be flight planning - I can/want to get there in a short
amount of time & fuel, but I must fly higher to achieve this plan, so I must
go through that small layer of clouds.

alan.

"Montblack" wrote in message
...
(Thomas Borchert wrote)
plus maintenance. Plus the weight of the mechanism. All for 5 or 10
knots, with well designed wheels as in the Cirrus or COlumbia.


Lets talk about those 10 kts (I'm calling them 10 mph)

Most flights are under 2 hours

Cruise speed (I'm calling it 240 mph. Vrrroooom!)

10 mph (x) 2 hrs = 20 miles

20 miles @ 4 miles per minute = 5 minutes (saved)

....per every 2 hours of flight

http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/content/specs/2004/lancair_columbia400_n143lc.html
Columbia 400 specs

Same: ....2 hour flight (for the retract)
With: ...... a 10 mph speed difference
And: ....... a cruise speed of (only) 180 mph
That's: .... 20 miles (extra flying) for the fixed gear
At: ...........3 miles per minute (approx. @ 170 mph)
Saves .....7 minutes on a 2 hour flight

Plus insurance
Pus initial costs
Plus complexity
Plus "not if - but when"

Thank God LSA saved us from all of that :-)


Montblack
Retract Cri-Cri. How cool would that be? VERY!!!!

Don't forget the weight penalty associated with retractable gear.

Also, consider that the higher you fly, the less speed loss you will suffer
due to fixed gear, since the air density is lower...

KB

"alank" wrote in message
...
Because the new turbo pilot might think - Now that I have a Turbo, instead
of staying down low out of the clouds, or even better, staying home, I
know that if I encounter Ice with my new turbo I can "safely" climb up
through the generally 3000' thick (at the most) layer of icing conditions
and be safe.... In other words, if I encounter Ice, I can climb out of it
fast & strong with a turbo plane, so more pilots decision makings may be a
little more adventurous.

They might think that. They might think that with a stronger climbing NA
engine, too.

Another reason might be flight planning - I can/want to get there in a
short amount of time & fuel, but I must fly higher to achieve this plan,
so I must go through that small layer of clouds.

Considering that flight into "known" or "forecast" icing conditions it
prohibited without an appropriately approved configuration....

("Kyle Boatright" wrote)
Don't forget the weight penalty associated with retractable gear.

Also, consider that the higher you fly, the less speed loss you will
suffer due to fixed gear, since the air density is lower...


Using: .... 15 gph
And: ......... 4 minutes

That's: .... 1 gallon (saved)
Every: .... 4 minutes (saved)

6 lbs vs. ?? lbs. (extra) for the retract system.


Montblack

Thomas Borchert wrote:

Newps,


And the Bonanza guys who put normally aspirated 550's in their planes
get 190-195 kts true at 8000 at about 16 gph.



In an antique, to boot... gd&r

Yep, preferred parking for those of you who go to Oshkosh and tens of
thousands of dollars cheaper to operate.

Matt Barrow wrote:



And the Bonanza guys who put normally aspirated 550's in their planes get
190-195 kts true at 8000 at about 16 gph.


Using what leaning techniques?




Find that red box list I posted a while back. Nothing radical.

Matt Barrow wrote:

"Newps" wrote in message
...


Nathan Young wrote:

For further comparison the non-turbo Cirrus will do 17.5gph @ ISA @
8000 for a TAS of 175KTS. Meanwhile the non-turbo Lancair 350 will
burn 17.4gph @ ISA @ 8000ft for a TAS of 191KTS.



And the Bonanza guys who put normally aspirated 550's in their planes get
190-195 kts true at 8000 at about 16 gph.


But they are not dragging their wheels out in the slipstream.





Good lord, no. Not on purpose.

Matt Whiting wrote:




And paying the insurance commensurate with that.

Have you checked the insurance on a Cirrus or Lancair? Double to triple
what I pay for the Bo, minimum, for a normally aspirated bird.



I checked on insurance
recently for a Skylane and a 210, both mid-60s vintage. The Skylane was
$1450 annually and the 210 was $3,800.


The last year I had the 182 I paid $1050 for $70K hull. I paid $2300
for the Bo for this year, I'll be below $2K when I re-up in August.

"alank" wrote in message
...
Because the new turbo pilot might think - Now that I have a Turbo, instead
of staying down low out of the clouds, or even better, staying home, I
know that if I encounter Ice with my new turbo I can "safely" climb up
through the generally 3000' thick (at the most) layer of icing conditions
and be safe....

Would you do that?

m

Newps wrote:


Matt Whiting wrote:




And paying the insurance commensurate with that.


Have you checked the insurance on a Cirrus or Lancair? Double to triple
what I pay for the Bo, minimum, for a normally aspirated bird.

Nope. I can't afford either so no point in checking. I'm not surprised
as they are new and have 4X the value of your Bo. And the Cirrus has at
best an average safety record in spite of all of their safety hype.

Insurance doesn't like the unknown and both of these are still largely
unknowns as airplanes go and I suspect that adds to the insurance cost.


I checked on insurance

recently for a Skylane and a 210, both mid-60s vintage. The Skylane
was $1450 annually and the 210 was $3,800.



The last year I had the 182 I paid $1050 for $70K hull. I paid $2300
for the Bo for this year, I'll be below $2K when I re-up in August.

Those are similar ratios, both well over 2X more for the retract. I
live in the northeast where everything costs more. Although, the last
year I co-owned my Skylane, my partner and I paid just over $1,000 also,
but he'd been insured with the same company for 10 years or more so that
likely helped.

Matt