Turbo Lance II opinions

[John Doe]

Hello,

I'm looking to talk with someone who's owned a Turbo Lance for their
opinions on ownership and maintenance.

Thanks.

[Mike Rapoport]

My first airplane was a 79 Turbo Lance. I bought it for the roomy cabin for
my dogs, reasonably fast cruise and fairly good altitude capibility. It was
a releative bargin compared to other six place, 170+kt, turbo airplanes. I
found it to be a good airplane for me and it met my expectations. Mine had
most of the availible speed mods and an intercooler which I recommend. I
only had if for about 16 months so I can't tell you what the long term cost
of ownership would be.

Mike
MU-2


"John Doe" > wrote in message
k.net...
> Hello,
>
> I'm looking to talk with someone who's owned a Turbo Lance for their
> opinions on ownership and maintenance.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>

[Vertical Rate]

> Hello,
>
> I'm looking to talk with someone who's owned a Turbo Lance for their
> opinions on ownership and maintenance.
>
> Thanks.
>

I used to fly one for a small company. It's a good airplane overall, lots
of room and payload. When this company was looking for an airplane, they
asked me to research the Turbo Lance II, specifically a 1979 they were
looking at and eventually purchased. I discovered from an analysis of
accidents in the NTSB database that this model has had a number of smoke in
the cockpit and/or fire in the engine compartment events due to the
turbocharger. IIRC, one of the events occurred even though an AD
specifically designed to stop this kind of thing was incorrectly done, and
some of the fault was laid on the AD itself for being difficult and
confusing.

While I've since lost the data, somebody posted a question about this make /
model in this newsgroup or R.A.P a few years ago and I responded to it (not
under this username) by posting my summary of what I learned about the
plane. You can probably find it in google / dejanews.

Engine temp control is important and you ought to have an all cylinder
engine monitor on it like a JPI. Get the cowling mod because it provides a
little speed increase and more importantly improves cylinder cooling.

[Mike Rapoport]

Wasn't there a change in the exhaust system to iconel that fixed the
problem?

Mike
MU-2


"Vertical Rate" > wrote in message
.. .
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'm looking to talk with someone who's owned a Turbo Lance for their
>> opinions on ownership and maintenance.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>
> I used to fly one for a small company. It's a good airplane overall, lots
> of room and payload. When this company was looking for an airplane, they
> asked me to research the Turbo Lance II, specifically a 1979 they were
> looking at and eventually purchased. I discovered from an analysis of
> accidents in the NTSB database that this model has had a number of smoke
> in
> the cockpit and/or fire in the engine compartment events due to the
> turbocharger. IIRC, one of the events occurred even though an AD
> specifically designed to stop this kind of thing was incorrectly done, and
> some of the fault was laid on the AD itself for being difficult and
> confusing.
>
> While I've since lost the data, somebody posted a question about this make
> /
> model in this newsgroup or R.A.P a few years ago and I responded to it
> (not
> under this username) by posting my summary of what I learned about the
> plane. You can probably find it in google / dejanews.
>
> Engine temp control is important and you ought to have an all cylinder
> engine monitor on it like a JPI. Get the cowling mod because it provides
> a
> little speed increase and more importantly improves cylinder cooling.
>
>

[John Doe]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> My first airplane was a 79 Turbo Lance. I bought it for the roomy cabin
> for my dogs, reasonably fast cruise and fairly good altitude capibility.
> It was a releative bargin compared to other six place, 170+kt, turbo
> airplanes. I found it to be a good airplane for me and it met my
> expectations. Mine had most of the availible speed mods and an
> intercooler which I recommend. I only had if for about 16 months so I
> can't tell you what the long term cost of ownership would be.
>
> Mike
> MU-2


With all that being said, why did you sell it so fast?

[John Doe]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> My first airplane was a 79 Turbo Lance. I bought it for the roomy cabin
> for my dogs, reasonably fast cruise and fairly good altitude capibility.
> It was a releative bargin compared to other six place, 170+kt, turbo
> airplanes. I found it to be a good airplane for me and it met my
> expectations. Mine had most of the availible speed mods and an
> intercooler which I recommend. I only had if for about 16 months so I
> can't tell you what the long term cost of ownership would be.
>
> Mike
> MU-2

I must admit that I'm not very smart on the turbo options. This would be my
first turbo engine.

I've seen some Lance's advertised with Turbo and then there are some that
specifically advertise Turbo with Intercooler. Are these two seperate
options available or are they one in the same? The Lance I'm looking at
just says Turbo in the ad and doesn't mention any intercooler.

Thanks.

[John Doe]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> My first airplane was a 79 Turbo Lance. I bought it for the roomy cabin
> for my dogs, reasonably fast cruise and fairly good altitude capibility.
> It was a releative bargin compared to other six place, 170+kt, turbo
> airplanes. I found it to be a good airplane for me and it met my
> expectations. Mine had most of the availible speed mods and an
> intercooler which I recommend. I only had if for about 16 months so I
> can't tell you what the long term cost of ownership would be.
>
> Mike
> MU-2

I must admit that I'm not very smart on the turbo options. This would be my
first turbo engine.

I've seen some Lance's advertised with Turbo and then there are some that
specifically advertise Turbo with Intercooler. Are these two seperate
options available or are they one in the same? The Lance I'm looking at
just says Turbo in the ad and doesn't mention any intercooler.

Thanks.

[Mike Rapoport]

"John Doe" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>> My first airplane was a 79 Turbo Lance. I bought it for the roomy cabin
>> for my dogs, reasonably fast cruise and fairly good altitude capibility.
>> It was a releative bargin compared to other six place, 170+kt, turbo
>> airplanes. I found it to be a good airplane for me and it met my
>> expectations. Mine had most of the availible speed mods and an
>> intercooler which I recommend. I only had if for about 16 months so I
>> can't tell you what the long term cost of ownership would be.
>>
>> Mike
>> MU-2
>
>
> With all that being said, why did you sell it so fast?

I needed an airplane that could cross the Sierra in virtually any weather so
I needed deice and radar. I was making flights where I had to be at the
destination.

Mike
MU-2

[Mike Rapoport]

"John Doe" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>> My first airplane was a 79 Turbo Lance. I bought it for the roomy cabin
>> for my dogs, reasonably fast cruise and fairly good altitude capibility.
>> It was a releative bargin compared to other six place, 170+kt, turbo
>> airplanes. I found it to be a good airplane for me and it met my
>> expectations. Mine had most of the availible speed mods and an
>> intercooler which I recommend. I only had if for about 16 months so I
>> can't tell you what the long term cost of ownership would be.
>>
>> Mike
>> MU-2
>
> I must admit that I'm not very smart on the turbo options. This would be
> my
> first turbo engine.
>
> I've seen some Lance's advertised with Turbo and then there are some that
> specifically advertise Turbo with Intercooler. Are these two seperate
> options available or are they one in the same? The Lance I'm looking at
> just says Turbo in the ad and doesn't mention any intercooler.
>
> Thanks.
>
>

The intercooler is a aftermarket STC'd modification. Without it, the
airplane will not be able to maintain high power settings above about
16,000' without overheating.

Mike
MU-2

[john smith]

>>I've seen some Lance's advertised with Turbo and then there are some that
>>specifically advertise Turbo with Intercooler. Are these two seperate
>>options available or are they one in the same? The Lance I'm looking at
>>just says Turbo in the ad and doesn't mention any intercooler.

> The intercooler is a aftermarket STC'd modification. Without it, the
> airplane will not be able to maintain high power settings above about
> 16,000' without overheating.

An intercooler is a radiator that cools a gas (air) instead of a liquid.
When air is compressed (what a turbocharger does) it heats up. When a
gas is heated it wants to expand (return to an uncompressed state), so
you place an intercooler (or two) inline following the turbocharger and
before the engine air intake, to cool the heated, compressed air before
it enters the engine, providing cooler, more dense air to the engine.
Cooler dense air can absorb more heat than hotter dense air and provide
greater expansion and therefore more power.

[Mike Rapoport]

"john smith" > wrote in message
.. .
>>>I've seen some Lance's advertised with Turbo and then there are some that
>>>specifically advertise Turbo with Intercooler. Are these two seperate
>>>options available or are they one in the same? The Lance I'm looking at
>>>just says Turbo in the ad and doesn't mention any intercooler.
>
>> The intercooler is a aftermarket STC'd modification. Without it, the
>> airplane will not be able to maintain high power settings above about
>> 16,000' without overheating.
>
> An intercooler is a radiator that cools a gas (air) instead of a liquid.
> When air is compressed (what a turbocharger does) it heats up. When a gas
> is heated it wants to expand (return to an uncompressed state), so you
> place an intercooler (or two) inline following the turbocharger and before
> the engine air intake, to cool the heated, compressed air before it enters
> the engine, providing cooler, more dense air to the engine.
> Cooler dense air can absorb more heat than hotter dense air and provide
> greater expansion and therefore more power.

Or it can provide the same power with all the temperatures being lower
(inlet, combustion, EGT, TIT).

Mike
MU-2

[John Doe]

Thanks for all the info. This is all great stuff and hopefully I'll be able
to make the right decision when it comes time to purchase.

[John Doe]

I found some readings that said the Turbo Lance has a fixed wastegate and
that there are other systems out there that have a manual wastegate that
allows the pilot to better control the turbo.

How much of this is really a factor and should I really care?

[Mike Rapoport]

You could interpret a manual wastegate as something that you have more
control over or you could say that it just provides more workload :-). The
Turbo Lance wastegate is attacked to the throttle linkage and works pretty
well. The best system is a compensated automatic wastegate but that is
considerably more expensive and complex.

Mike
MU-2


"John Doe" > wrote in message
news:R5nOe.17574$Co1.9024@lakeread01...
>I found some readings that said the Turbo Lance has a fixed wastegate and
>that there are other systems out there that have a manual wastegate that
>allows the pilot to better control the turbo.
>
> How much of this is really a factor and should I really care?
>

[Dave Butler]

John Doe wrote:
> I found some readings that said the Turbo Lance has a fixed wastegate and
> that there are other systems out there that have a manual wastegate that
> allows the pilot to better control the turbo.
>
> How much of this is really a factor and should I really care?

For my money, I'd care. There is a series of 6 articles on turbocharging by John
Deakin at avweb.com. Here's a link to the index of John's Pelican Perch articles:

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182146-1.html

Scan down the list to the "Those Fire-Breathing Turbos" articles.

Dave

[John Doe]

"Dave Butler" > wrote in message
news:1124732805.292189@sj-nntpcache-3...
> John Doe wrote:
>> I found some readings that said the Turbo Lance has a fixed wastegate and
>> that there are other systems out there that have a manual wastegate that
>> allows the pilot to better control the turbo.
>>
>> How much of this is really a factor and should I really care?
>
> For my money, I'd care. There is a series of 6 articles on turbocharging
> by John Deakin at avweb.com. Here's a link to the index of John's Pelican
> Perch articles:
>
> http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182146-1.html
>
> Scan down the list to the "Those Fire-Breathing Turbos" articles.
>
> Dave

Awesome link, THANKS!

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 14:39:32 GMT, john smith > wrote:

snip

>An intercooler is a radiator that cools a gas (air) instead of a liquid.
>When air is compressed (what a turbocharger does) it heats up. When a
>gas is heated it wants to expand (return to an uncompressed state), so
>you place an intercooler (or two) inline following the turbocharger and
>before the engine air intake, to cool the heated, compressed air before
>it enters the engine, providing cooler, more dense air to the engine.
>Cooler dense air can absorb more heat than hotter dense air and provide
>greater expansion and therefore more power.

Technically, an intercooler is a "radiator" placed between a
exhaust-driven turbine compressor and a mechanically-driven turbine
compressor (a la B-17). Your description of an aftercooler is spot-on.

You may not be familiar with the Turbo Lance/'Toga "intercooler"
installation. It is a relatively inefficient aftercooler installation
that has other very important benefits.

It changes the existing lower cowl design from a single common air
inlet which is shared between updraft cylinder cooling, induction air
supply, and oil cooling air cupply. The new lower cowl has separate
inlets for updraft cylinder cooling, induction air, and oil cooling,
as well as the aftercooler inlet.

Unfortunately, the outlet of the aftercooler heat exchanger is
exhausted into the pressure area for the updraft cylinder cooling.

The installation will drop operating CHT by approximately 40-60
degrees F, and operating oil temp by 20-40 degrees. Considering that
CHT can run 450 F and oil temp 220+F this is a very good thing.

I honestly cannot recall the typical induction air temp drop, but the
overall package works quite well. IMHO this is as much a result of
improved engine/oil cooling air flow as actual induction air cooling.

Personally, I would not consider operating a Turbo 'Toga/Lance without
this modification.

Regards;

TC

[John Doe]

> Personally, I would not consider operating a Turbo 'Toga/Lance without
> this modification.

Well it seems that after reading all the articles mentioned on turbos and
your comments, my decision has come down to one aircraft with and one
without this intercooler mod.

I'm assuming this mod can be performed aftermarket. Do you happen to know
the cost of performing the mod?

The asking price difference right now between the two is about 20k. There
are some other factors going into that cost, but I need to be able to
justify the extra $$$.

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 11:59:51 -0400, "John Doe" >
wrote:

>Well it seems that after reading all the articles mentioned on turbos and
>your comments, my decision has come down to one aircraft with and one
>without this intercooler mod.
>
>I'm assuming this mod can be performed aftermarket. Do you happen to know
>the cost of performing the mod?
>
>The asking price difference right now between the two is about 20k. There
>are some other factors going into that cost, but I need to be able to
>justify the extra $$$.

10 years ago it was around $6500 + install. Only web reference I could
find for the kit says $7495 (no idea how old).

Unfortunately, other digging around on the 'net indicates that
Turboplus is not currently an operatiing GA entity. Found a post by a
guy that says he owns all the paperwork/assets and is looking for a
buyer.

Could call these guys, I guess:

http://www.barteltaviation.com/install.htm

Back to airplane shopping:

If I was looking at these aircraft, I would want to know EXACTLY how
much total time was on the exhaust components. Would NOT recommend
running any of them past recommended TBO. Anybody that tells you any
different has very likely never seen the results of a turbo lance/toga
exhaust failure/engine fire.

On a test flight, look/ask about typical oil temp/CHT indications in
cruise. If the engine has been operated for any period of time with an
oil temp over 210 or CHT over 450 (hard to tell, no numbers on factory
gauge) is likely to have cam spalling & accelerated e-valve guide
wear.

Don't ask me how I know this...

TC

[John Doe]

> wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 11:59:51 -0400, "John Doe" >
> wrote:
>
>>Well it seems that after reading all the articles mentioned on turbos and
>>your comments, my decision has come down to one aircraft with and one
>>without this intercooler mod.
>>
>>I'm assuming this mod can be performed aftermarket. Do you happen to know
>>the cost of performing the mod?
>>
>>The asking price difference right now between the two is about 20k. There
>>are some other factors going into that cost, but I need to be able to
>>justify the extra $$$.
>
> 10 years ago it was around $6500 + install. Only web reference I could
> find for the kit says $7495 (no idea how old).
>
> Unfortunately, other digging around on the 'net indicates that
> Turboplus is not currently an operatiing GA entity. Found a post by a
> guy that says he owns all the paperwork/assets and is looking for a
> buyer.
>
> Could call these guys, I guess:
>
> http://www.barteltaviation.com/install.htm
>
> Back to airplane shopping:
>
> If I was looking at these aircraft, I would want to know EXACTLY how
> much total time was on the exhaust components. Would NOT recommend
> running any of them past recommended TBO. Anybody that tells you any
> different has very likely never seen the results of a turbo lance/toga
> exhaust failure/engine fire.
>
> On a test flight, look/ask about typical oil temp/CHT indications in
> cruise. If the engine has been operated for any period of time with an
> oil temp over 210 or CHT over 450 (hard to tell, no numbers on factory
> gauge) is likely to have cam spalling & accelerated e-valve guide
> wear.
>
> Don't ask me how I know this...
>
> TC

TC,

Thanks. That's what I'm worried about. It only has an EGT gauge and
nothing to monitor CHT or TIT, etc.

Is there going to be problems getting parts for the turbo system ?

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 20:19:14 -0400, "John Doe" >
wrote:


>TC,
>
>Thanks. That's what I'm worried about. It only has an EGT gauge and
>nothing to monitor CHT or TIT, etc.
>
>Is there going to be problems getting parts for the turbo system ?

Honestly, have been out of the GA game for several years.
Historically, the exhaust components were available from Lycoming
(they are engine-specific, not airframe specific). Can't remember
having any issues finding an aircraft turbo overhauler that didn't
have the capabilities to do the turbo.

Also, bear in mind that unless things have changed, there is an
AD-mandated recurring 100 hr exhaust inspection (referencing a
Lycoming SB-499 I think). To do this inspection properly takes some
time, and will periodically require some on-condition parts
replacement.

TC

[Oracle]

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 16:44:12 +0000, Mike Rapoport wrote:

> You could interpret a manual wastegate as something that you have more
> control over or you could say that it just provides more workload :-). The
> Turbo Lance wastegate is attacked to the throttle linkage and works pretty
> well. The best system is a compensated automatic wastegate but that is
> considerably more expensive and complex.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>
> "John Doe" > wrote in message
> news:R5nOe.17574$Co1.9024@lakeread01...
>>I found some readings that said the Turbo Lance has a fixed wastegate and
>>that there are other systems out there that have a manual wastegate that
>>allows the pilot to better control the turbo.
>>
>> How much of this is really a factor and should I really care?
>>

On cars, the waste gate is basically a variable rate spring inside a
metered valve. As the pressure increases, the valve opens...as it
decreases, the valve closes. The valve releases excessive pressure within
the turbo, thusly preventing overboost. On cars, they are simplistic. I'm
not sure how much is different between a waste gate on a car and a waste
gate on a plane.

Having said all that, I'm 100% sure I would not own a turbocharged
anything that did not have an automatic wastegate on it.

Greg

[Oracle]

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 16:44:12 +0000, Mike Rapoport wrote:

> You could interpret a manual wastegate as something that you have more
> control over or you could say that it just provides more workload :-). The
> Turbo Lance wastegate is attacked to the throttle linkage and works pretty
> well. The best system is a compensated automatic wastegate but that is
> considerably more expensive and complex.
>

As should also add, I would imagine that a turbo-normalized engine has a
much more complex wastegate. That's obviously a guess on my part.

Greg

[Mike Rapoport]

"Oracle" > wrote in message
news:pan.2005.08.26.17.31.58.160929@asdf...
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 16:44:12 +0000, Mike Rapoport wrote:
>
>> You could interpret a manual wastegate as something that you have more
>> control over or you could say that it just provides more workload :-).
>> The
>> Turbo Lance wastegate is attacked to the throttle linkage and works
>> pretty
>> well. The best system is a compensated automatic wastegate but that is
>> considerably more expensive and complex.
>>
>> Mike
>> MU-2
>>
>>
>> "John Doe" > wrote in message
>> news:R5nOe.17574$Co1.9024@lakeread01...
>>>I found some readings that said the Turbo Lance has a fixed wastegate and
>>>that there are other systems out there that have a manual wastegate that
>>>allows the pilot to better control the turbo.
>>>
>>> How much of this is really a factor and should I really care?
>>>
>
> On cars, the waste gate is basically a variable rate spring inside a
> metered valve. As the pressure increases, the valve opens...as it
> decreases, the valve closes. The valve releases excessive pressure within
> the turbo, thusly preventing overboost. On cars, they are simplistic. I'm
> not sure how much is different between a waste gate on a car and a waste
> gate on a plane.
>
> Having said all that, I'm 100% sure I would not own a turbocharged
> anything that did not have an automatic wastegate on it.
>
> Greg
>
>

The difference is that the airplane wastegate should compensate for
different altitudes.

Mike
MU-2

[John Doe]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "John Doe" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>> My first airplane was a 79 Turbo Lance. I bought it for the roomy cabin
>>> for my dogs, reasonably fast cruise and fairly good altitude capibility.
>>> It was a releative bargin compared to other six place, 170+kt, turbo
>>> airplanes. I found it to be a good airplane for me and it met my
>>> expectations. Mine had most of the availible speed mods and an
>>> intercooler which I recommend. I only had if for about 16 months so I
>>> can't tell you what the long term cost of ownership would be.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>> MU-2
>>
>> I must admit that I'm not very smart on the turbo options. This would be
>> my
>> first turbo engine.
>>
>> I've seen some Lance's advertised with Turbo and then there are some that
>> specifically advertise Turbo with Intercooler. Are these two seperate
>> options available or are they one in the same? The Lance I'm looking at
>> just says Turbo in the ad and doesn't mention any intercooler.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>
> The intercooler is a aftermarket STC'd modification. Without it, the
> airplane will not be able to maintain high power settings above about
> 16,000' without overheating.
>

Does the intercooler require any maintenance ? I checked on it and it
appears that the company that was making the intercooler option has gone out
of business.

[Mike Rapoport]

"John Doe" > wrote in message
news:lIQQe.2865$8q.1555@lakeread01...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>>
>> "John Doe" > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>>
>>> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
>>> ink.net...
>>>> My first airplane was a 79 Turbo Lance. I bought it for the roomy
>>>> cabin
>>>> for my dogs, reasonably fast cruise and fairly good altitude
>>>> capibility.
>>>> It was a releative bargin compared to other six place, 170+kt, turbo
>>>> airplanes. I found it to be a good airplane for me and it met my
>>>> expectations. Mine had most of the availible speed mods and an
>>>> intercooler which I recommend. I only had if for about 16 months so I
>>>> can't tell you what the long term cost of ownership would be.
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>> MU-2
>>>
>>> I must admit that I'm not very smart on the turbo options. This would
>>> be my
>>> first turbo engine.
>>>
>>> I've seen some Lance's advertised with Turbo and then there are some
>>> that
>>> specifically advertise Turbo with Intercooler. Are these two seperate
>>> options available or are they one in the same? The Lance I'm looking at
>>> just says Turbo in the ad and doesn't mention any intercooler.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The intercooler is a aftermarket STC'd modification. Without it, the
>> airplane will not be able to maintain high power settings above about
>> 16,000' without overheating.
>>
>
> Does the intercooler require any maintenance ? I checked on it and it
> appears that the company that was making the intercooler option has gone
> out of business.
>
No, an intercooler is just a heat exchanger.


Mike
MU-2