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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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 kzfaq.info/get/bejne/d5eWoLF3vLSsdGg.html kzfaq.info/get/bejne/kKiiac6b28zemaM.html

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Hey Charlie, are you headed to Oshkosh this year?

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

Can u include that link please?

What’s getting u into the turboprop arena?

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.

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

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.

A little surprised the starter does not automatically disengage.

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

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

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?

What is NG?

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.

Inertial separator...?

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

WhaT IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD A Kodiak ???

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

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

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

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

Dan Gryder, KZfaq'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.

Wow.... handsome and sexy bear 😜

Great

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

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