Hi,

I'm sitting here flying my FSX Carrenado Cessna 182 RG over the Grand Canyon and I'm wondering if pilots really fly single planes like this over mountains and the Grand Canyon? If they do, what do they do if the engine conks out?

Also, I know IFR ceritfied pilots could take a Cessna 182 into and above clouds, but what is the highest they can go due to limited oxygen and a pressureless cabin? Thanks. Tom

I used to fly a Turbo 182 over the mountains of Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Montana. The 182 is a capable airplane in the mountains when it is turbocharged. When flying over 12,500 for more than 30 minutes I would don the oxygen cannulas. The only thing bad about that is the extremely dry nostrils I would get and then the overreaction of snot afterwards :lol: The ceiling of the one I was flying said it was 25,000 feet but I couldn't imagine how long it would take you to get that high at climb rates between 300-500 feet per minute.

 

As for the engine out you are taking a calculated risk and trying to minimize all possibilities of losing your engine. If it does go hopefully you are in an area where there is a large enough place to set it down in like an alpine field or a road.

 

The majority of the time I was on airways and they seem to follow roads pretty well.

Hi,

I'm sitting here flying my FSX Carrenado Cessna 182 RG over the Grand Canyon and I'm wondering if pilots really fly single planes like this over mountains and the Grand Canyon? If they do, what do they do if the engine conks out?

Also, I know IFR ceritfied pilots could take a Cessna 182 into and above clouds, but what is the highest they can go due to limited oxygen and a pressureless cabin? Thanks. Tom

 

Tom,

 

I use to take my Turbo R182RG between Denver and Grand Junction several times a week for work. The flight planning would vary depending on VFR or IFR and where my destination was. Normally you plan a route that keeps you over valleys and highways just in case.

 

An example would be from KGJT to KBJC. It is a simple path from KGJT, KRIL, SXW (cutting NE just prior to SXW to avoid departures out of KEGE), RLG, KGNB, and then over Rollins Pass to KBJC. The whole flight is over highways, lower open terrain, and airports. The only time I would possibly be without a suitable diversion spot would be the 45 degree approach to Rollins or while crossing. If the engine quit while approaching Rollins there should be enough altitude to allow a turn back to lower terrain by Fraser, CO. Once over Rolliins it is a simple descent to KBJC.

 

IFR is a different beast and more planning goes into flight prep. IFR in the mountains in a piston single is not the safest or brightest idea and many precautions should be taken. Especially the clearance between the bases of the clouds and tops of the terrain. In the event you lose an engine you want ample time out of the clouds to find a valley/clearing/road to land on.

 

With regard to altitude most aircraft either have supplemental O2 or the pilot carries a supplemental O2. After that it is performance of the aircraft that determines how high you can go. My turbo 182RG would comfortably take me into the low flight levels without any issues.

Thanks for the info, guys.

I think my FSX model is a standard Lycoming engine so for sake of realism I better make 10,000 my ceiling to be safe.

Tom

That or hold your breath Tom. I tend to turbo charge my piston aircraft. TC will make it mechanically capable but breathing is kinda important also.

You can 'turbo' her if you like. There's a setting in the aircraft.cfg and then you set the critical altitude. It's rough, but it should work.

In reality. what exactly is turbocharging? I assume it allows higher altitudes and speed but is it performed on the standard engine or must a new engine be installed? I'm not that much of a mechanic but am familiar with a normal piston engine thanks to my building those famous V8 and radial engines by Renwall when I was a kid. :biggrin: Thanks again. Tom

It mainly reverts the air sucking engine to one which receives air from a device setting up a 'higher than ambient' air pressure. The turbocharger would be driven by the engines exhaust gases whereas a supercharger would use a drivetrain setup. The automotive sector may know some more variations, so that's a rough distinction.

 

The result is a more or less constant manifold pressure for your engine. As opposed to the rather severe loss with altitude, which may even be a bit too much in the sim.

 

So while your naturally aspirated engine loses some one inch of manifold pressure per 1000ft of altitude gain, the turbocharged one would counteract this effect up to a certain level, the critical altitude, and then start losing manifold pressure.

 

You can do a bit more with the turbo if you wanted to. So 'overboosting' abilities or generating pressure for a pressurized cabin could also be an option. And some special engines use both, a turbocharger and a supercharger. But that's the end of the piston engine range, it's more likely that a turbine follows those power demands nowadays.

 

is it performed on the standard engine or must a new engine be installed?

Technically, you can use the same engine and modify it. Well, you stress it some more and you alter the thermal management a lot, so I guess you would be seeing specialized conversions or variations of the same engine block, with and without a turbocharger.

 

You receive the ability to fly higher and faster. In efficiency therms, you are dethrottling the engine. But I guess the rw flyers will tell you something on the costs involved and the need to manage the engine's heat when it comes to avoiding shock cooling and things.

 

In general, the turbocharged Cessna may feel a lot better at lets say some 12.000ft than the naturally aspired one. For a sneak peak, you can alter the aircraft.cfg. Make a backup and then look into the [piston_engine] section. Add or modify these.

turbocharged= 1

max_design_mp= 30

min_design_mp= 1

critical_altitude= 15000

This will give you some decent performance. ^_^

Thanks for the info, guys.

I think my FSX model is a standard Lycoming engine so for sake of realism I better make 10,000 my ceiling to be safe.

Tom

 

Tom, are you leaning out the mixture for max performance at altitude?

 

A normally aspirated 182RG (incl Carenado's) should be able to get/keep you into the mid teens without much issue.

 

 

Tom, are you leaning out the mixture for max performance at altitude?

 

A normally aspirated 182RG (incl Carenado's) should be able to get/keep you into the mid teens without much issue.

 

That's correct. And FSX starts getting critical for leaning at 6000'. My "standard" non-turbo Lycoming (RV-6)often flew well above 10,000' density altitude. Just depends on size and weight of the airplane. We also carried a portable oxygen system.

I would also add about 25% to the engine HP when turbocharging. I usuallt take 275 to 325 and 300 to 350.

There are two types of turbo-charging for aircraft engines.

 

1) Turbo-normalize .. 2)Turbo-boost

 

Turbo-normalization is usually found on a mostly stock engine. By either waste-gate, or strict, pilot management, MP is limited to something near 30" ... benefit is sea-level power (MP) up to critical altitude.

 

Turbo-boosting requires engine modification.. usually lower compression-ratio, and O-ringed heads.. because its purpose is to increase available power, sometimes well above sea-level MP.

Turbo-boosting requires engine modification.. usually lower compression-ratio, and O-ringed heads.. because its purpose is to increase available power, sometimes well above sea-level MP

 

Not in FS The engines we build for tractor pulling, yes. Cylinder pressures in the 400 to 500 range @ 100 lbs of boost running 4500 HP.

"They pull or blow" Waste gates? Thats for cissies

 

Thanks for all the info, guys. :smile: Yes, I try to lean a bit below peak. Tom

Thanks for all the info, guys. :smile: Yes, I try to lean a bit below peak. Tom

 

Unfortunately FSX does leaning completely wrong and only works well at leaning to peak EGT.