Bristell B 23 Turbo - I am in love!

Snoopy wrote:

Turbo needs more juice.

I think the opposite is true – look at all modern car engines – you’ll rarely find any non turbocharged – just for fuel efficiency reasons. Also you can fly in thinner air with less drag. Specific fuel burn of the Rotax 912 compared with the turbocharged 914 is about the same. What indeed makes a difference is fuel injection.

The cabin of the B23 and its useful load is impressive – the performance unfortunately is not

Also you can fly in thinner air with less drag

But you can’t breathe…. I think holding climb rate to non-oxygen altitudes over terrain is the thing that justifies the complexity of a turbo engine for some people. A little bit higher speed from flying above say 12,000 ft doesn’t in my mind justify having a turbo if it also comes along with using oxygen – that’s just a pain, but good climb rate at a higher speed to 10,000 ft is surely nice.

But you can’t breathe…. I think holding climb rate to non-oxygen altitudes over terrain is the thing that justifies the complexity of a turbo engine for some people. A little bit higher speed from flying above say 12,000 ft doesn’t in my mind justify having a turbo if it also comes along with using oxygen – that’s just a pain, but good climb rate at a higher speed to 10,000 ft is surely nice.

I agree. Having to mess with oxygen is not that nice. And indeed not much speed gain over FL120 I suppose. And a turbo does require some management after landing and it’s another component that can fail and requires maintenance.

However a big plus is the ability to fly at ‘on-top’ levels and get there quickly, especially favorable with a non anti-ice aircraft. You don’t need a big hole

Depends. If I want to fly over the alps, a 140hp NA engine can get quite sluggish while a Turbo will allow a quick jump up to FL140, and after 15 minutes or so a descent for landing again. Oxygen isn’t such a pain for this example.

Fair enough, but with the exception of your using 14,000 versus 12,000 ft I think that’s consistent with my point: the straight and level case isn’t all that compelling, particularly if it’s not required for any airspace or geography en route. Oxygen is not required by FAA for up to 30 minutes between 12 and 14,000 feet, assuming your individual body can handle it.

Crossed with Snoopy

However a big plus is the ability to fly at ‘on-top’ levels and get there quickly, especially favorable with a non anti-ice aircraft. You don’t need a big hole

Agree on all counts. But I sure don’t need no smoking turbo to do that

I suppose another advantage of a turbo is take-off performance on a hot and/or high short field. When I bought my non-turbo 912 B23 I knew that the turbo version was under development and considered waiting, because I knew the 912 would not be a star in that dept. I decided not to wait for another year because that’s not recommended at my age.. No regrets; 1 POB, full fuel yields a 200-250 m take off roll (300-350 when hot) and that serves my purpose. And 105-110 KTAS is fine for my kind of flying, especially when going places with a group of ULMs.

I suppose another advantage of a turbo is take-off performance on a hot and/or high short field.

That’s a really good point, but the complexity
may not be necessary. @Dan’s RV does not need a turbo to launch from 9,000 ft DA.