Question - turbo or non turbo Saratoga?

[Capt Groper]

Looking at anybody with Saratoga experience.

What is your feel as to whether I should get turbo or non turbo Saratoga?

Getting very confusing. Talk to someone and they say wouldn't buy an aircraft without one and then talk to someone else and they say stick with normally asperated.

Extra thrust and fuel economy with turbo changing but the associated extra maintenance costs?

Help?

[CMS]

IMO, you should absolutely get the turbo version if you are intending to fly above 5,000', especially IFR.

The extra thrust and the ability to continue a steady climb to 10,000' are well worth the difference. As for extra maintenance costs, in the ten years I owned a turbo Sara, I had one problem with the wastegate which was solved relatively cheaply by the guys at EGSX. And that problem was almost certainly caused by a lack of use in the early years.

[IO540]

It really depends (in Europe) on whether you have an IR.

If not, you are continually bound by controlled airspace.

If so, filing IFR makes CAS irrelevant and then a turbo is worth having. Unfortunately, few turbo engines make TBO - presumably because they are used as intended :)

However, considering a turbo without also considering anti-ice equipment is misguided. I don't have a turbo but my TB20 can go to 20,000ft (ISA conditions, or colder) and that is good enough for practical IFR, done as VMC enroute.

If you make a case for a turbo being able to get you through freezing layers, you are taking a bit of a chance on getting stuck in icing conditions for extended periods, and a turbo alone (i.e. being able to climb to say 15000ft at +1000fpm) isn't going to do you much good for the next few hours in level flight.

The extra ceiling due to the turbo (typically 25k v. 20k) cannot be realised without using oxygen masks (not just cannulas) and while cannulas are easy and hassle free (I've done 2.5hrs today with one up my nose :) and up to 7hrs on other occassions) the same cannot be said for masks; nor for the much higher oxygen usage which raises topping-up issues.

[Capt Groper]

CMS and IO540, many thanks for your replies. Capt Groper:D

[A and C]

A very good post from IO540, I would just like to add the for practical IFR year round you will need some weather avoidance kit.

[madlandrover]

+1 for IO540's post and others. Decide what role you actually need/want the aircraft for - the turbo versions are "better" and overall more capable aircraft, but you need to be in a position to use that capability regularly for it to make sense. Even my own 160hp non-turbo fixed pitch prop single will happily maintain cruise TAS up to and beyond FL130, even if the rate of climb is a bit slow up there...

Recent experience teaching on both a turbo and non-turbo PA28RT is that the turbo version does allow a higher cruise speed but naturally at the expense of fuel burn. Below FL70 or so there's no practical advantage to the turbo unless you're doing seriously long trips - for average bladder length trips there aren't that many miles in it!

[Papa Mike Mike]

I'd recommend the Turbo option, I've had a TB21 which is TC and now have a Cirrus G3 also Turbo normalised and have never had issues with either. Peace of mind of breaking through on top asap! :8

[IO540]

A few years ago a colleague and I did a comparative test of portable oxygen systems and demand regulators, at FL180. Interesting results (one mfg was less than chuffed ;) ).

It was done in a turbo Saratoga, which climbed to FL180 at +1000fpm. I was impressed.

I keep half an eye on turbo options, and would buy a good TB21GT anytime, but have not yet met anybody whose engine made TBO, or anywhere near it. A friend seemed like he would be an exception but I have just heard he has had to change one pot, so I am back to zero examples... And the UK engine scene seems to have close to nil turbo / wastegate controller troubleshooting capability.

If I went to a TB21 it would need full TKS otherwise the higher climb rate would be of limited use (basically, one would do departures and arrivals in frontal weather / real icing conditions) and then one loses a lot of payload. It turns a TB20 (a great long distance load carrier, capable of FL200 @ ISA or FL170 at ISA+20) into a great long distance 2-seater, albeit improving the despatch rate from say 75% to say 95%. The TKS fluid is pricey too; I bought 20L for my prop TKS and it cost best part of £200. TKS is reportedly more effective than boots (for heavy or prolonged icing conditions) but one can see the attraction of boots.

[NazgulAir]

Another consideration may be the uncertain future of Avgas with the advent of a new fuel that is said to be unusable in high compression ratio and turbocharged engines. TC aircraft may find it very difficult and very expensive to fuel their planes.

We don't have a turbo and were thinking of adding one at the time of engine MOH, effectively refitting the aircraft at factory specs, not even requiring an STC. It seemed such a great idea, but then we began calculating the benefits against the costs, and had to come to the conclusion that we don't want to work our engine hard, won't spend much time at altitudes where the turbo would be essential, won't have deicing and oxygen masks, are perfectly happy at FL100-150 and yet have to test the plane's book capability of FL215... so what would actually offset the installation cost, the extra maintenance, the lower engine life? Very little, in our case. Maybe the appeal of the TC. The idea of being high up there with the big boys.
The Avgas developments were just the final straw that confirmed our decision.