Wondering if it would be worth it to go with a 200 hp piston with turbocharger over a 180 hp piston with turbocharger, for a Bearhawk. Thoughts.

More is better..... let me Quantify that statement.

You can run a big turbo small but you can't run a small turbo big, so if you go 180 and you are running 180 all the time or you can go 200 and run 180 and last longer. It will take a little effort to do this but you can do it and when you do need the full 200 it will be there. I run a 350hp turbo on one of my toys and have it cranked down to about 290hp and when I want it I twist it up and hang on!

As Hotshot says, more is better . . . but . . .

It's nice to be able to use auto fuel. Depending on your application (and this is Backcountry Pilot), availability of 100LL or equivelent might be of concern.

Which engines are you talking about? If its turbo / turbo just get the 20 extra hp.
I have always felt that with our air-cooled engines that if you normally operate at lower altitudes, SL to 5k, go naturally aspirated bigger displacement for increased power. Operations in Co, NM, UT, ID the boost can really make a performance difference and if you can lower the nose and get some air to cool it then the turbo weight / complexity with smaller displacement is a better option than going big NA. If it is an experimental install of a Lyc, I like belt driven supercharging. You can run normal compression ratios / Fuel octane of choice / easy to control Manifold pressure / temps. Turbo supercharging seem to increase engine temps more than just supercharging because of the exhaust backpressure and relatively short exhaust pipes in this type of install. Cooling becomes difficult and cowl mods go on and on, Intercoolers help but increase weight and complexity. Turbo engines need a lot of Air for cooling and it gets thin at higher altitudes reducing your cooling systems effectiveness. Ive had to put in a lot of 100LL just to keep a turbo engine cool.

madpilot wrote:Wondering if it would be worth it to go with a 200 hp turbo over a 180 hp Turbo, for a Bearhawk. Thoughts.

Wow I'm a complete idiot. By turbo I meant piston with a turbocharger. Editing post now.

I think we got that you wanted turbocharging. What engines do you want to use? TSIO ?

Skydive206 wrote:I think we got that you wanted turbocharging. What engines do you want to use? TSIO ?

Ok good. I thought you might but I always assume people are as dumb as myself. . Looking at Lycoming TIO-360.

I have had sucess building a 180 hp O-360 parallel valve and installing High Compression pistons. It made 200 hp and fairly light weight compaired to the Angle valve 360. I think the Angle valve was almost 60lb heavier in the same config. 4 seat Bearhawk in CSP would need a powerfull engine. Some exp 360s are stroked and punched out and with supercharging could make 230-250 hp.

Skydive206 is right--the angle valve engines are quite a bit heavier, which means more forward CG, and poorer performance, and maybe even having to add weight back aft to keep it in CG.

Also, you're adding complexity with a turbo--increased maintenance, shorter TBO, and a lot more careful operation of the engine.

If twer me, I'd be looking at the IO 390 option, get it built and tuned, and stay away from anything that starts with TIO.... With one of those engines normally aspirated, you can be pushing 220 hp or so, which at high DA still is going to provide decent power.

And, get a GOOD prop.

MTV

200HP Turbo Must be nice..Price at our pumps at $5.69 right now and been rising steadily every week. Cost me $65 in gas to fly my 4 gallon per hour 80mph airplane to an EAA pancake breakfast last weekend...scares the crap out of me...Is it going to stop? How long till it's economically impossible to fly GA?

The Angle valve O-360 may not be 60lbs but it is much heavier. If it is high alt 4-6K takeoff and landings you can easily go 10:1 pistons and could even go 14:1s an all you would have to do is limit your MP for take off. Power and fuel econ at the alt you operate at. If you are taking off at 5K and flying around at 6-7msl you dont want 8.5:1s. Also Replacing 1 mag with electronic ignition makes a huge difference at altitude for power and econ.

Go with a stroked 360 from Bart at aerosport power in BC 220 HP and better economy at the pump.

Don't believe all the words from non-turbo owners. I have a TO-360 and love it, it really has no more maintenance cost than any other engine. Up high on a hot day a 390 wont even come close. I have never figured out why so many people are afraid of turbo's 78% of the industrial world has ran them for years.
The damage from overboost isn't blowing the heads off its detonation, I run 42" and put 24gph to keep it cool. Once at altitude you can pull it back to 10 GPH I never do. I bought the plane to travel not sight see so I am usually burning 14-15gph.

The TO-360s are not just a turbo charged 360 they have very few parts in common.

mr scout wrote:Don't believe all the words from non-turbo owners. I have a TO-360 and love it, it really has no more maintenance cost than any other engine. Up high on a hot day a 390 wont even come close. I have never figured out why so many people are afraid of turbo's 78% of the industrial world has ran them for years.
The damage from overboost isn't blowing the heads off its detonation, I run 42" and put 24gph to keep it cool. Once at altitude you can pull it back to 10 GPH I never do. I bought the plane to travel not sight see so I am usually burning 14-15gph.

The TO-360s are not just a turbo charged 360 they have very few parts in common.

Are you talking about a TSIO 360, as in a Continental engine, or a TIO 360 Lycoming?

I'm not afraid of turbo charged engines, but, depending on the engine, many of them have a shorter TBO than their normally aspirated brethren. Shorter TBO = $$. More weight, more complexity. Not necessarily HUGE factors, but they are factors worth considering.

There are places and airplanes where the turbo makes a lot of sense. And, others where they don't.

MTV

mtv wrote:

mr scout wrote:Don't believe all the words from non-turbo owners. I have a TO-360 and love it, it really has no more maintenance cost than any other engine. Up high on a hot day a 390 wont even come close. I have never figured out why so many people are afraid of turbo's 78% of the industrial world has ran them for years.
The damage from overboost isn't blowing the heads off its detonation, I run 42" and put 24gph to keep it cool. Once at altitude you can pull it back to 10 GPH I never do. I bought the plane to travel not sight see so I am usually burning 14-15gph.

The TO-360s are not just a turbo charged 360 they have very few parts in common.

Are you talking about a TSIO 360, as in a Continental engine, or a TIO 360 Lycoming?

I'm not afraid of turbo charged engines, but, depending on the engine, many of them have a shorter TBO than their normally aspirated brethren. Shorter TBO = $$. More weight, more complexity. Not necessarily HUGE factors, but they are factors worth considering.

There are places and airplanes where the turbo makes a lot of sense. And, others where they don't.

MTV

I've been thinking turbocharge for better performance at hight alt. I know I could get by with a Norm. Asp. just worndering if it would be worth it. If it adds a lot of weight then the advantages would not be worth it. I was wondering if it would allow for better takoff performance at altitude without comprimising too much hauling capibility.

Bearhawks are light and high-performance enough that money spent for a Turbo anything would probably be better spent in a good set of bushwheels, IMO. Bob Barrows went to AK in his four place (170 hp, mogas) and his patrol (185 hp eci engine) and no issues. Nothing wrong with the turbo, just don't see where the expense is justified in this particular plane. Just build light.

eh009us wrote:Bearhawks are light and high-performance enough that money spent for a Turbo anything would probably be better spent in a good set of bushwheels, IMO. Bob Barrows went to AK in his four place (180 hp, mogas) and his patrol (185 hp eci engine) and no issues. Nothing wrong with the turbo, just don't see where the expense is justified in this particular plane. Just build light.

200 or 180 and can I get a constant speed or does that add weight as well?

mtv wrote:

mr scout wrote:Don't believe all the words from non-turbo owners. I have a TO-360 and love it, it really has no more maintenance cost than any other engine. Up high on a hot day a 390 wont even come close. I have never figured out why so many people are afraid of turbo's 78% of the industrial world has ran them for years.
The damage from overboost isn't blowing the heads off its detonation, I run 42" and put 24gph to keep it cool. Once at altitude you can pull it back to 10 GPH I never do. I bought the plane to travel not sight see so I am usually burning 14-15gph.

The TO-360s are not just a turbo charged 360 they have very few parts in common.

Are you talking about a TSIO 360, as in a Continental engine, or a TIO 360 Lycoming?

I'm not afraid of turbo charged engines, but, depending on the engine, many of them have a shorter TBO than their normally aspirated brethren. Shorter TBO = $$. More weight, more complexity. Not necessarily HUGE factors, but they are factors worth considering.

There are places and airplanes where the turbo makes a lot of sense. And, others where they don't.

MTV

Mike there you getting your hackles up, statements are not always directed at you.

I didn't see TSIO-360 anywhere in my comments

Are you talking Bearhawk or BH Patrol ? either engine is fine, but when you get into a 200hp stock engine, the weight goes up since it's a different block. Personally I'm going with something like Aerosport power's IO375 in 195(can burn mogas) or 205 hp (100ll only). It's a stroked o360. I wouldn't build it w/o a CS prop.

eh009us wrote:Are you talking Bearhawk or BH Patrol ? either engine is fine, but when you get into a 200hp stock engine, the weight goes up since it's a different block. Personally I'm going with something like Aerosport power's IO375 in 195(can burn mogas) or 205 hp (100ll only). It's a stroked o360. I wouldn't build it w/o a CS prop.

Bearhawk 4 place