|
|
|||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
One more thing - nowadays most of us have EDM 760's or 960's. They tell you what the CHT cooling rate is and it gives you an alarm if > 50 deg/min. If you are foolish enough to think you can descend at 195 KIAS and impress your friends then at least the monitor will let you know you are being very unkind to your engine. Much better to not let things get cold under the cowling. Also in winter in descent you can freeze the air/oil separator can that the TSIO's have or the breather tube and end up pressurizing the case, then blowing the seal, which has caused engine failures in many different types of acft. In acft that fly in colder conditions you often see this can and the breathing tubes insulated, with holes drilled or notches cut before the cowling interface to let liquid water out and minimize the chance of this happening. Keeping things nice and toasty with slower descent rates and proper engine management still however remains safe and smart.
So with the TSIO 360's, if you have the right engine monitoring equipment it is easier to ensure that the engines remain much more durable and dependable than in the olden days. 
|
|
#2
03-02-16, 04:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Single engine service ceiling numbers are attached for a 1971 (non-turbo) Skymaster. Just to illustrate as an example, today it is +70 deg F at Sedona airport (4830 ‘ asl) and say an engine fails at max gross after take off. In a turbo model you will be climbing at ~ 240 fpm. According to the attached table, in the 1971 model you will have to descend. Obviously those who fly the non-turbos already know this. This also implies that say it is 80 deg F and humid, you will be lucky to maintain even 4000 feet at max power if an engine fails. Anecdotes re turbo vs non-turbo are entertaining, but the only anecdote that really matters is the one that you got yourself into when those Swiss cheese holes line up.
So like anything in flying you have to weigh the pros and cons (for turbos cons include the weight, the cost of maintenance/repair/overhaul, you have to be more careful with MP settings and treat them right, and it’s another thing that can fail in flight), and make your choice. Personally I chose turbo for all the reasons in the P337H tables attached earlier. Last edited by JamesC : 03-03-16 at 06:18 PM.
|
|
#3
03-03-16, 04:29 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#5
03-03-16, 11:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hmm...+70C is about +158F...and here I thought Texas was hot!
 
|
|
#6
03-04-16, 02:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I have a 1969 T337D with a Robertson kit and I have to say I totally agree with N86121. The airplane is just amazing. Climbs without hesitation up to 19000 ft, which is the highest I've taken it so far to get over the Rockies. Lifts 850 lbs with full fuel. And the engine out service ceiling is 19k ft on the rear engine, 16k ft on the front. So I can lose an engine over the Sierras and basically coast into Livermore where I am based. Every once in a while I look around for other airplanes and keep coming back to the T skymaster. In the west I would not want a non turbo airplane. A P model might be nice though....
|
|
#7
03-04-16, 09:13 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Some great info here. Though I am largely a flatlander (here in the northeast our tallest hurdle is 6288ft, and a standout at that), as my opener mentioned I have put some stock in the discussions various and wide about climbing above IMC conditions. I'm not especially stoked about the extra cost of maintenance, but our weather here is (in)famously unpredictable. Guess I'm pretty much sold on the idea of a turbo at this point. I'd still love to hear any anecdotes from those who've found themselves with a sudden need to climb above weather.
|
Hybrid Mode
