This Turboprop Is WAY Easier Than a Piston (Here’s Why)

[@AirplaneAcademy]

Hi guys - I wanted to let you know that I just launched an Insiders Newsletter, where once a week I send an email with an important aviation lesson I've learned, links to my latest content so you won't miss anything, and occasional behind the scenes content. I'm also working on a big new project that I can't announce yet, but I will be sharing more behind the scenes content with my Insiders via email along the way. You sign up (free) at airplaneacademy.com/insiders

[@michaelb.8953]

I think I'm going to switch from charcoal to gas just so I can stand in the backyard and yell "clear Prop' while holding my big plate of hamburgers.

[@golfbravowhiskey8669]

I'll try to keep this condensed for space I've been flying 802 air tractors for about 19y and 15y before that in turbine thrushes, i am 53yo So I have roughly around 25,000 hours and over 47,000 logged landings, yeah we average about two landings per hour on a bad day. Just two weeks ago we were in Alaska on vacation in a new Kodiak Island hopping, the 20 or 22 year year-old sub 1500 hour Pilot Could not figure out how to start the plane due to a INOPP auto start. I was sitting right behind him watching him struggle through starting procedures I leaned up and over and asked him if he would like me to start it and he was a little smart ellick and said sir sit down we do not allow passengers to touch anything, and I told him I said when you were born I was probably already 32 or 33 years old and already had 8 to 10,000 hours along with that many landings in the PT6, so if you wanna sit here and struggle knock yourself out but I'll get us going in about 2 1/2 minutes if you'll let me lean over your shoulder🤣 He agreed, we got that baby busted off and headed out. He's a great little kid, he's been keeping in touch with me for the last two weeks and probably gonna move to South Texas as I'm getting him set up with a pretty good job with the oil and gas companies here.

[@197jm]

Doesn't sound like they were being a "smart ellick", unless you were wearing your hat that says "I've been flying 802 air tractors for about 19y and 15y before that in turbine thrushes, i am 53yo So I have roughly around 25,000 hours and over 47,000 logged landings, yeah we average about two landings per hour on a bad day." on it, and he actually had time to read it before responding to you. Have to keep in mind less than 0.1% of people in the US hold a license. See, that's being a smart *Aleck 😉

[@golfbravowhiskey8669]

@@197jmha ha. Yep. you know that backseat passenger that always wants to help you out that was me I was that backseat Karen 🤣💦

[@bigling007]

Nice comparison. FADEC certainly lessens the work load. Nice job as always.

[@cabdouch]

FYI, while in the 1980's and earlier we were taught things like 23 squared, nowadays we just push the throttle all the way in and make sure we're not exceeding the MAP Limit (which is hard to do with a Waste Gate preventing over-pressuring the induction system) and use the Prop control to set the RPMs. On my T210, I fly with the throttle all the way in all the time except on the final approach. I set the RPMs with the Prop control to 2300 - 2400 and adjust the Mixture to LOP (80-85 lbs/hr), then when I am about to shoot an approach, I set the engine for 2300 RPMs and 14 GPH and I don't touch the Prop or Mixture until the final approach when I pull the throttle back for the first time in the entire flight. Upon pulling the throttle back to 15-17 MAP, I push the Prop and Mixture all the way in to be ready for a Go-Around. My dad was a P-38 line mechanic in WW2 and they ran around 80" of pressure. Your Turbo, Intercooler, or induction system will limit the pressure. Prior to the Intercooler being added, the Induction system was limited to 37.5", so the Waste Gate was set to that. Since the Intercooler has a 32.5" limit, that is what the Waste Gate was set to so that anything over that will vent and not over-pressure the induction system. Your Waste Gate *should* be set to the maximum pressure of your induction system, so you should never have to reduce the throttle. Look for the red line, probably at 32" for a Turbonormalized 182. There are some Turbonormalized systems (I think Bonanza's) where the Waste Gate is set way over limit so that you continue to push the throttle in more as you climb. But you should already be doing that if you have that system. ie, before takeoff, you set your Prop and Mixture to full, then as you takeoff, you push the throttle in so that the MAP is at the redline. Then as you climb to altitude and the MAP drops, you can continue to push the throttle up to maintain the redline. Here is Mike Busch explaining it kzbin.info/www/bejne/d2LJnoF8jLN7epY kzbin.info/www/bejne/kHPVZ56gq8utn9E

[@Halli50]

How true. Once you have learned the peculiarities of different turboprop engines, they are far simpler to operate than high-performance pistons. I have flown PW PT6, Garret TPE331 and PW119 engines (only twins) and, now long retired, I am privately babying along a geared 295hp piston engine. Far more pitfalls than flying a turboprop.

[@kevinbarry71]

Of course it's easier than a 182. The technology in that airplane, with a possible exception of the avionics, goes back decades. Now, compare it to a diamond D50. With full FADEC. Push the button to start, and you have one lever. Even simpler

[@ascherlafayette8572]

Boooooring

[@royalbirb275]

@@ascherlafayette8572 yes, but shpeeeedy xD

[@Bill-sp8kb]

Starting gravity drive engines, is even easier. Just think it. 😂

[@calvinnickel9995]

@royalbirb2090 Only if you put on O2 and go to space. Plus other annoyances like having to climb up to get into it, getting soaked by the rain and scorched by the sun, etc.

[@str33tkng]

Yea Diamonds being full FADEC is nice honestly.

[@TheBillzilla]

The Garrett TPE-331's on the Metro 3 I used to fly were even easier to start - just push the start button then sit back and monitor.

[@dereksellars]

Hey, Charlie. You are spot on. I look for your videos all the time. Great content. Thank You!!

[@AirplaneAcademy]

Thanks so much! Glad you enjoy the channel and appreciate you watching.

[@GreenBlueWalkthrough]

Great video and great points! Which I should check out more turbine engine planes in my sims as I should be more adapt at them then full pistons as I tpically fly my pistons like turbines which has issues like lack of performance.

[@GreenBlueWalkthrough]

3:37 That kinda sounds like the Kodiack is a sweet heart which there are sweet heart Cessna's pistons too but I get your point on advage a turbine is less termprmantal to start then a piston... Which I would agree with like the your exemple is more like a 4+++,Gen 5/5+ craft in VTOL VR then most MSFS cessna's... Which is a complament as those things are the one of most egonomic aircraft designs of all time. Like even the Cessna sky catcher LSA is just a smig "easier" to start then that Kodiac.

[@danielsalvia6689]

Greetings from Buenos Aires - Argentina. Obviously, turbo props have lots of "more" compare to pistons. Better performance; better fuel efficiency; they can fly higher and faster; engine is somehow more reliant . Now, lets be honest: purchase price is considerable higher as well.

[@Halli50]

Fuel efficiency in an unpressurized turboprop? Nah, you are dead wrong. Of all the aircraft I have flown, the Cessna C404 Titan and the Cessna C406 Caravan II are the starkest example seeing that they are dimensionally identical, i.e. they have the same tank capacity: The C404 had 2 geared 375hp piston engines while the C406 had 2 PT6A 500hp engines. The C404 had an endurance of 10-11 hrs at 180kts, range 1850NM, while the C406, at 200+kts, only had a range of 1150NM! The problem: A turboprop has to be pressurized, i.e. able to cruise at FL200 or higher to come into it's own. I also flew the Cessna C441 Conquest (same fuel capacity, but pressurized to FL350), 2 x 636hp Garret TPE331 engines and a range of almost 2200NM! Turboprop fuel efficiency is REALLY crappy al lower altitudes!

[@danielsalvia6689]

@@Halli50 See you´ve flown a lot. Appreciate that. Now, let´s agree (as you say) that for a turbo prop to compete, it has to be pressurized, meaning flight level must be much higher than 15.000 feet. Another argument could be piston engines with turbo are much convenient than turbo props.

[@Halli50]

@@danielsalvia6689 Don't get me wrong, I'll take a turboprop any day over a piston engine ( better power, reliability and easier operation), it is the dismal fuel efficiency at lower altitudes I was ranting about.

[@danielsalvia6689]

@@Halli50 Understood your point. As you say, low altitude for a turbo prop fuel consuption is like hell ... 😎

[@roadboat9216]

Thanks for the info. Never flew a turboprop. The must be pretty darn dependably too. I watch Missonary Pilot in PPNG. That is some hazardous flying. If you have in engine power issue, particularly on climb out, you are toast.

[@wheresmytractor1019]

Have you looked into operationg the 182 oversquare? Way better.

[@askee2572]

What’s getting u into the turboprop arena?

[@healerf18]

My question as well. Are you planning to fly commercial?

[@firefighter4443]

Everything I’ve read about general aviation piston engines suggests that the complication stems from not having an engine control unit automatically adjusting the F/A ratio based on mass air flow, O2, and other sensors. Your certified general aviation aircraft all require manual control, which is tech from literally WW2. My buddy has an experimental with a snowmobile engine. It automatically adjusts F/A ratio as we climb. Granted, he’s got a fixed prop. But geeze, get some modern engine tech into general aviation.

[@KiRiTO72987]

That's always been one of the things that's bugged me about most modern piston aircraft you'd think they'd just have an automated system to keep the A/F ratio just right

[@BobbyGeneric145]

Its already expensive enough

[@andrewagner2035]

Greetings. Kodiak is a big and expensive plane to fly around with only 2 people?

[@h.matherbennett7356]

Hey Charlie, are you headed to Oshkosh this year?

[@AirplaneAcademy]

Unfortunately the schedule won't work out this year, so no. But hopefully next year!

[@AaronWbirdman]

Can u include that link please?

[@cuttersgoose]

So I’m restoring a Grumman goose with twin radials..I’m debating on going to turbines…I’d like to be able to take her overseas and turbines with 4 or 5 blade props would be way more dependable and have more power than the piston 3 blade engines…as the joke for a goose on single engine operation, is that the good engine will take you to the scene of the crash …I have flown her on one engine, but she doesn’t like it, and if you have a load, forget it…so I have zero experience with turbines….I’m also looking at buying a porter with a turbine to boost my time and experience.. What is your opinion on my thinking, putting nostalgia aside, am I going the right direction?

[@SuperYellowsubmarin]

That's the kind of consideration I would love to have 😅

[@ericbitzer5247]

That's a classic airplane and only around thirty left. Please keep it as original as possible, including the engines. I know it's tempting to switch to turboprops but there's too many DC3s that aren't original anymore and even though you get better performance, it's just not the same.

[@cuttersgoose]

@@ericbitzer5247well when you get a goose you can do whatever you want with it..I have 3 so one of them will stay piston.

[@ericbitzer5247]

@@cuttersgoose That's true, when it's your plane, you can do whatever you want with it. However, I think it's a disservice to the plane and the aviation loving community to mess up a classic plane with engines that don't belong in it. It would be very difficult if not impossible to go back to original once the transition is made. I know it's just my opinion and it isn't worth squat, but please think about it. There's too few of these beautiful aircraft left.

[@ericbitzer5247]

@@cuttersgoose Either way, I don't think you'll be crossing any seas without refueling. There is way too much drag on there old seabirds unless you meet a refueling boat and you hope for calm seas.

[@Trevor_Austin]

Even easier than a turbo-prop is jet. The only difference between them is time.

[@Airmadillo]

mean that you are no longer enjoying the mixture adjustment and carburetor heat settings....lol

[@TheFdgsgf]

If I am flying out of an airport, I would choose a low wing plane, for many reasons. If you are not doing back country flying why choose a high wing plane. Yes I have seen the episode where you went through your list to help choose. A Beech or Diamond low wing would be a better all around choice over a Skylane.

[@calvinnickel9995]

Why choose a low wing airplane? You have to climb on the wing to get in and out of it. You have no protection from the rain or sun when you’re outside of the plane and the seats will get wet. You have no view downwards. Low wings offer nothing except for this peculiar illusion of “coolness” to low time pilots.

[@rbl560music]

Advantages of a high wing, especially in warmer climates, include the fact that you're sitting in a shadow, not a hot bubble. Plus, there are typically more doors for easier access, and quick egress. You don't have to lay down on the hot tarmac to inspect the gear or sump the fuel and such pre-flight. And you have better visibility of the beautiful countryside you're flying over. And high-wings don't 'float' as easily on the flare. My Cardinal is at least 6" wider in the cabin than most GA low wing craft. And the visibility upward is still good with the wing being farther back. The doors are huge. The floor height is the same as my pickup, so entry/exit is so simple I don't ever even move the seat. There is no climbing up on the wing, or plopping down onto the seat. So, it is all a matter of preference. To imply that a high wing is only for back country and anyone not doing that is silly to have one is overly simplistic.

[@AC-jk8wq]

I have a low wing… No struts, less drag… Dihedral adds stability…. Great for IFR flight. Retractable Gear system is super short legged, and mechanically simple… If speed and efficiency are your thing… go low wing. Low and slow flight seeing… go high wing. Next level discussion…. Laminar flow wings…. 😃

[@deanfowlkes]

If you or the people with which you fly are older, mobility challenged, or wearing a skirt, high-wing is your only option. If your mission requires ground visibility (utility inspection, news gathering, herd or wildlife management, aerial photography, Search and Rescue, etc.), high-wing is the better option.

[@gamrguy0]

I thought it was the 208B Grand Caravan from the thumbnail

[@mauriceevans6546]

I am a light sport pilot and I am preparing to by a new airplane. I am waiting for mosaic to become law next year because I would like to have a turbine engine in the plane I want to buy like the tarragon, jmb or whatever new design comes out with turbine.

[@tafaragadze6432]

JBM VL3 Turbine gets my vote

[@mauriceevans6546]

@tafaragadze6432 they are testing turbines in several aircraft and the JMB is definitely high on the list. I also love the tandom seating aircraft as well. Gonna be interesting to see what the new rule finally allows.

[@chrishabgood8900]

A little surprised the starter does not automatically disengage.

[@currentfaves65]

Saw a video on a jet fueled diesel, seems like the simplest power system available, until they figure out electric.

[@tnmonty501]

Diamond aircraft

[@topofthegreen]

There are a lot of turbines you can fry if you do something wrong.

[@firefighter4443]

I was surprised it didn’t have a computer controlled startup. All it takes is one mistake with the throttle during those crucial low RPM moments to cook the turbine blades.

[@OG-Productions]

Honestly as a MSFS fanboy turboprops are harder than props (jets are the easiest in my opinion as you just have to turn on Auto Throttle VNAV climb, LNAV and your good.

[@deanfowlkes]

What you are describing is Autopilot and Auto-throttle. Not all jets have auto-throttle. Most turboprops have autopilot. So do most modern piston-props. Now, many more turboprops now have auto-throttle. More Turboprops and Piston-props now have FADEC engine and prop controls. FADEC reduces the number of engine levers to just the throttle and the condition lever (engine on/off fuel switch).

[@mlhbrx96]

What is NG?

[@seanlehmann4235]

NG is gas generator speed, basically the speed a section of the turbine is spinning. It is started spinning by battery and when it gets spinning fast enough, about 14%, you can add fuel to start combustion. After that, it should keep going with gas being added to the already burning fire. It’s a very simplistic explanation but hopefully it helps.

[@whoprofits2661]

After watching the latest video from Kodiak MD, the mere mention of Kodiak makes me cringe.

[@keepitsimpleengineer]

Inertial separator...?

[@deanfowlkes]

My understanding was that you only need the inertial separator if you are on a soft field or unprepared airfield. Sort of like when you turn off carb heat on grass or dirt airfields. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

[@JQNick]

Ha ha, yea they sure are. Wait till you fly multi crew, ‘Hey siri, gear up’ 😉

[@fanBladeOne]

Makes me want to put a fan next to the stove. For no reason...

[@neon_Nomad]

Its almost like we train on piston because they just barely fly

[@747FoSophie]

Flying turboprops and jets is a lot easier than flying piston aircraft in my opinion.

[@TheFdgsgf]

WhaT IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD A Kodiak ???

[@mattym8]

Lancair Evolution is a fraction of the cost.

[@OMSecretAgent]

Wow.... handsome and sexy bear 😜

[@mesillahills]

Dan Gryder, KZbin's "Probable Cause" disagrees. He claims it to be too much airplane for some people. In fact in just the past two weeks a medical doctor and his two kids died when he mishandled the new turboprop airplane due to inexperience (an opinion) with that much power. Dan sometimes refuses to give lessons to people who get into too much airplane for their experience. He specifically says a Turboprop requires a lot more experience.

[@bigling007]

I think here, he is just speaking of starting and managing the engine between the turboprop and piston. Even in the video he acknowledges that the speed makes it more complicated. I fly a complete turbo piston engine, it is part of task management and is part of managing the flight. I think a lot of this management comes from FADEC which hasn’t made its way to pistons in mass, and certainly not available on these legacy planes.

[@AC-jk8wq]

It is easy to buy too much engine…. But that is what transition training is for…. The FAA decided over 200hp was high performance… and required a signature in your log book by a qualified CFI. Putting 300hp in a plane designed for 200hp makes it a different plane…. The PT6 can easily pump out 750hp…. Which can easily help a low time pilot make mistakes… 😃

[@marcusjamesOG]

The Kodiak 100 is a piston engine as well dude. You should be saying naturallly aspirated piston engine vs turbo prop piston engine.

[@dotRB]

No, a turboprop is a turbine powered aircraft. The turbo of turboprop comes from turbine. Turbo powered piston is just the same category as an naturally aspired engine. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turboprop

[@deanfowlkes]

The Kodiak 100 is not a piston- engined aircraft. It is a turbine-powered aircraft with a propeller. There are no pistons in the engine. Turbojet (jets), Turbofan (modern jets), Turboshaft (mostly helicopters with turbine engines), and Turboprops (Kodiaks, TBMs, Cessna Caravans, most Pilatus, etc.) are all turbine powered. In aviation, if a piston-engine has a turbocharger or a supercharger, the actual FULL/WHOLE word (turbocharged or supercharged) is used. Another name for some of turbocharged piston engines is an Altitude Normalized Engine.

[@andyjames6664]

Cessna 182 = £650k, Kodiak 100 = £2.3mn. I wonder why there is a difference - go figure.

[@akrammy9251]

Great