Skylane Turbo RG

[Silvio Pettirossi]

Hello everyone!

I would like to learn more about the skylane turbo RG, my boss is considering one and I have my doubts if it would be the best choice for our operation; we do mostly short 100-200Nm trips but many of them per day and far away from the next airport with fuel, so we need something with big tanks, the RG has got them. My cuestion is; will it drink a lot more fuel then a non-turbo Skylane?
Is anyone experienced with this aircraft?
It has got 235Hp just like the RG without turbo, does that mean it is only "turbonormalized" and not "turbosupercharged"?

Thanks for your help an please excuse me for the bad english!:\ :ok:

[Longbow55]

To tell you the truth, if you are not flying over 10,000ft then the Turbo is kinda a waist of money. now if you routinley fly above those altitudes, then the Turbo is a great asset. Either Turbo Normalized or turbo charged would do the same at altitude. I would opt for Tubo over normalized. the later is supossed to keep (I forget what altitude) the engine thinking it is way lower than it is, but I here no often than not it really doesn't do that. Hope this helped.

Find a RG if you really want an RG with extended tanks.

[Piltdown Man]

Other questions are what sort of strip will you be operating from and what sort of payload will you be carrying?

[172driver]

Silvio, have a look at this article

http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/content/2004/nov/cessnas_turbo_skylane.html

I regularly fly the 172RG and this is a great plane, however, as Piltdown Man implies, the undercarriage doesn't look like isn't designed for rough strips. AFAIK, it's the same system (i.e. two rather spindly legs for the main wheels) on the Skylane.

HTH

[Silvio Pettirossi]

Well, I guess a 182 without turbo would be better for us. And the little main wheels of the RG are not best suitet for rough fields around here We are also looking at the 172XP, nice performer to, but a bit small tanks, in my opinion.

Thanks for your help!:ok:

[172driver]

Just curious - where are you guys actually based ?

[n5296s]

The TR182 is just turbo-normalized, so if you stay below 5000' or so it is no different from a normal 182 as far as fuel burn and performance go. Above that, it makes a *big* difference, you can climb at 700 fpm right up to FL200. The wheels aren't much smaller than a regular 182, I've flown mine into grass (very nice grass it's true) and seen various retractable Cessnas on (less ncie) grass in the UK, so it can't be *that* bad. (I'd much rather fly my TR182 into a so-so grass strip than a Cirrus or Columbia).

It all depends on what altitudes you need to use. If you regularly use fields with a DA above 2000', I would definitely go for the turbo.

n5296s

[Silvio Pettirossi]

172driver: We are based in Asuncion, Paraguay

n5296s: Interesting info, what is your typical fuel burn on the TR182?

[n5296s]

n5296s: [/B]Interesting info, what is your typical fuel burn on the TR182?
I cruise at 14 gph (2200 rpm, 25", TIT=~1450). Since the last annual I could actually run a bit leaner and get about 13.5. Because the engine is carburetted, you can't really run LOP.

n5296s

[javelin]

Cessna 206 - don't fanny around with retractables. It gets in and out of short strips, it cruises fast enough, it is economical - ish, and it hauls an enormous load.

[172driver]

We are based in Asuncion, Paraguay

Well, so high-altitude performance shouldn't be an issue for you then. Guess I'd second Javelin - a 206 is great utility a/c.

[flyboyike]

Cessna 206 - don't fanny around with retractables. It gets in and out of short strips, it cruises fast enough, it is economical - ish, and it hauls an enormous load.

I would second that. Get a T206 though.

[javelin]

Unless you are doing long high altitude sectors, I would question the turbo. They make the engine rather delicate, reduce the life and only turbo normalise - i.e. keep sea level to higher.

With warm up and cool down to think of and no sudden power changes, I would stick with the normally aspirated one I love the KISS principle !