Single-engine Endurance and Performance

[WebMaster]

Parallax. It was the camera angle.

[hharney]

Winds, we had a real stiff wind out of the north. Might be some of the reason it looks that way.

[Learjetter]

Hi fellas! slight re-vector on the thread: searched the whole internet, this and the UK forum, but didn't find an answer: anyone know the engine-out performance degradation with the underbelly cargo pod installed? I'm looking at buying skymaster (there goes the kids' college education $$, which they don't need because the only people making money these days are plumbers and mechanics!). Anyway, I'm fairly comfortable with the SE performance numbers, but can't find the cargo pod penalty. Since I'll be flying out of high pressure alt locations in the mountain west, I'd like to know how bad the SE performance is with the pod installed. Thanks in advance for your knowledge.

Fly Safe!

[hharney]

Here are the recommendations from my POH 1968 C model. Hope that helps.

[Learjetter]

Thank you! That is EXACTLY what I was looking for...

[Paul Sharp]

I own a '67 Turbo, and we were flying back to Utah from Montana, over the mountains at 16,500' about 7-8 years ago. Fuel probably at about 80% of capacity at that point (using all 4 tanks), 3 adults plus baggae, in winter. I would WAG we were about 400-500 lbs. under 4300 gross.

The rear engine CHT began to creep upwards. There were no corroborating readings, but to be conservative I shut down the rear engine. The plane held 16,500 with no problem at all for half an hour to the nearest decent airport. (Turned out to be only a bad CHT probe.)

Of course, the non-turbo models are vastly different (which is why I don't own one).

[Roger]

Paul

I understand that you want to maintain your operating altitude in the teens because of where you live, but isn't that the only reason to own a turbo?

My question is : is there any advantage in owning a turbo if you don't fly about 10,000 ' ?

Aren't the engines essentially turbo normalized to 210 hp max, so for example you have no increased HP at 5000' on a turbo, vs normally aspirated? It this is true, then there would be no real difference in maintaining altitude / single engine out (outside of that difference as related to density altitude) which of course could be significant depending on the day.

How much manifold pressure are you showing at cruise in the 5000' range on a normal day at 75% (that might answer this).

Any thoughts on this?

thanks/Roger