B: Turbo - - the difference (WAS .... Merlyn stuff)

[Walter Atkinson]

Yes, you can run VERY efficiently in GoFar MODE.  I did it more often  
when I only had 80 gallons.  I've actually run at 15k at as lowly a  
power setting as 75% to stretch range!  It will do it at much lower  
power settings as well.

<g>

We were going from ABQ to Baton Rouge non-stop in GoFar mode with  
only 80 gallons on board and my wife said, "I used to think this was  
fast, but I got used to TASs that were three digits and started with  
a 2."  She then commented that slower was faster since we weren't  
having to stop for fuel but she still liked to see three digits that  
start with a 2.

Walter


On Aug 3, 2007, at 10:45 AM, Jim_SB wrote:

Hello John D. (and you other TAT guys)..........

With the TAT turbo - say you've only got 80 gallons (like me) - can  
one get to say 15,500 msl east bound and run at a very efficient  
power setting to get both speed and long range?

I realize the tendency is to use "go fast mode", but what if I wanted  
to get from Camarillo to Chicago with only 1 fuel stop? Is that doable?

Will the TAT turbo run happily at say 12 gph LOP? What type of KTAS  
might one see at say 15.5k east bound?

Thanks for indulging my curiosity.....

Regards,

Jim in Santa Barbara


----- Original Message ----- From: "John Deakin"  
<jdeakin at advancedpilot.com>
To: <beech-owners at beechcraft.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 9:39 PM
Subject: Re: B: Turbo - - the difference (WAS .... Merlyn stuff)


> I dunno, I found the turbo completely changed the way I flew.
>
> Used to do 8,500, 9500, 10,500 as a matter of routine.
>
> Those same trips with the turbo, 16,500 and 17,500, for anything  
> over about 45 minutes enroute.  1,000 fpm to FL200 makes a huge  
> difference in the way I think.
>
> Your mileage may vary...
>
> Best...
> John Deakin
>
>
> Larry Olson wrote:
>> George,
>>
>> While your B36TN is nothing but a great and superb plane, maybe  
>> someday I can afford one. It's twice the cost of my old Baron. And  
>> it will outperform the Baron, no doubt about it, especially with  
>> ice over the hills. If I do get a "next" plane, it will probably  
>> be the TN A36, if I do more mountain flying.
>>
>> As for the turbo making the difference, you've got a better  
>> performer and a better equipped plane than I do. However, I could  
>> have made all the the trips mentioned excepting I probably would  
>> have diverted around, or below the moderate ice as I couldn't make  
>> 210 anyway, and carrying moderate above 140K hills is not for me,  
>> but I've done it.
>>
>> My comment (for my flying) is that the turbo hasn't made a huge  
>> difference is true. If I spend more time out west, a Tn36 would be  
>> a fine choice for me, but with only 3 or 4 trips per year it's not  
>> an issue for now. Still, other than one approach to below mins  
>> into Eagle, I haven't cancelled an out west trip yet. I can still  
>> get up to 180 in the Baron and the engine out performance is great  
>> compared to a single.....
>>
>> Larry Olson
>> St. Pete
>>
>>
>>
>> On Aug 2, 2007, at 8:43 PM, George Braly wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Turbo - - the difference - - -
>>>
>>> Hmmmm
>>>
>>> In the last two weeks,  our  B36TN has:
>>>
>>> 1) Monday emergency (NTSB investigation) trip from ADH to RENO (plan
>>> trip at 11am, leave at 4pm, arrive at dark in Reno;
>>>
>>> 2) Return from RENO to ADH at conclusion of investigation on  
>>> Wednesday
>>> afternoon.  Include one hour at 21,000 feet across the rockies in
>>> moderate icing (TKS worked well).  Home Wednesday evening in time  
>>> for
>>> late dinner;
>>>
>>> 3) Trip to OSH
>>>
>>> 4) Return to ADH
>>>
>>> In the next ten days, will fly:
>>>
>>> 5) ADH to DLH;
>>>
>>> 6) DLH to ADH;
>>>
>>> 7) ADH to Montgomery (AL)
>>>
>>> 8) Return.
>>>
>>>
>>> Frankly - - having owned a non-turbo Bonanza - - I would not want  
>>> to try
>>> to make those kinds of trips without the turbo.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,  George
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>