There is a difference in fuel flow (and thus range, cost), potential tailwind, and weather. Most turbines fly faster higher, even if the B36T gets wheezy up there. Even if slower up high, the reduced fuel flow is significantly beneficial for range.

If you want to build a turbine airplane for travel, and be able to sell it generally, you need pressurization.

Mike C.

That's not true for many people.

Sometimes, I will deliberately fly lower, like FL220, just to keep cabin altitude down (~4000 ft) for an elderly passenger or one who isn't as healthy as you are. If it was just noise, that wouldn't make a difference, and it does make a big difference.

Additionally, when I flew unpressurized airplanes, flying at 6,000 ft versus 12,000 ft made a big difference in passenger comfort and complaints. Noise would be the same, so that wasn't it, either.

So I don't believe the noise theory at all. It was oxygen.

Mike C.

Build them in china, make the price a million even and they will blacken the sky.






It's ugly. But so is the PC12 and it hasn't held that airframe back one bit.

There is a difference in fuel flow (and thus range, cost), potential tailwind, and weather. Most turbines fly faster higher, even if the B36T gets wheezy up there. Even if slower up high, the reduced fuel flow is significantly beneficial for range.

If you want to build a turbine airplane for travel, and be able to sell it generally, you need pressurization.

Mike C.

That's not true for many people.

Sometimes, I will deliberately fly lower, like FL220, just to keep cabin altitude down (~4000 ft) for an elderly passenger or one who isn't as healthy as you are. If it was just noise, that wouldn't make a difference, and it does make a big difference.

Additionally, when I flew unpressurized airplanes, flying at 6,000 ft versus 12,000 ft made a big difference in passenger comfort and complaints. Noise would be the same, so that wasn't it, either.

So I don't believe the noise theory at all. It was oxygen.

Mike C.

where do you get this stuff Mike?? I flew over 300 hours with my Rocket Boom at 15,000' and checked my pulse ox on a very regular basis and never, not once, did I ever drop below 92%. ( and I am the guy that gets a headache at 10,000')Dont make statements of fact with absolutely no basis.
As for refilling, I set up my own cascade system for under $700.00, and used it for 3 years. A B36tc has something like 100 cu. ft. of O2 on board and I never once filled up at an FBO after getting my fill system. Keep to accurate facts, dont just spit out stuff.
Now if someone is in a corporate hangar and its against policy, that is a different matter, But that does not apply to most single engine owners.

where do you get this stuff Mike?? I flew over 300 hours with my Rocket Boom at 15,000' and checked my pulse ox on a very regular basis and never, not once, did I ever drop below 92%. ( and I am the guy that gets a headache at 10,000')Dont make statements of fact with absolutely no basis.
As for refilling, I set up my own cascade system for under $700.00, and used it for 3 years. A B36tc has something like 100 cu. ft. of O2 on board and I never once filled up at an FBO after getting my fill system. Keep to accurate facts, dont just spit out stuff.
Now if someone is in a corporate hangar and its against policy, that is a different matter, But that does not apply to most single engine owners.

Turbine without pressurization is a non starter, IMO.

92% isn't very good, borderline. That is about the point measurable degradation in performance starts to occur. This is at 15,000 ft, hardly a challenging altitude as the rules allow you to be up to 14,000 ft for 30 minutes with no oxygen.

Standard up your nose cannulas get my readings to about 96% at 18,000 ft, their max usable altitude. I doubt the boom cannula can get there at 18,000 ft.

This makes me question the efficacy of delivering oxygen in the general vicinity of your nose rather than truly into your nose like standard cannulas. I'd also think that small movements of the boom position, perhaps inadvertent and unnoticed, can change the efficacy significantly. I also wonder about the effect of air movement around your face on the performance.

It would be interesting to see a chamber ride of the boom cannula and standard cannula side by side, spO2, O2 flow, etc, and how sensitive spO2 is to boom placement and air movement around the face.

Mike C.

If you are a FedEx box.

In the owner flown segment, not so much. Those who do buy it for that use it as a bush plane on floats or other utilitarian purposes, not as a long distance traveling machine.

Mike C.

If you are a FedEx box.

In the owner flown segment, not so much. Those who do buy it for that use it as a bush plane on floats or other utilitarian purposes, not as a long distance traveling machine.

Mike C.

My mission and anyone thinking about buying an Extra 500, the subject of this thread.

Mike C.

92% isn't very good, borderline. That is about the point measurable degradation in performance starts to occur. This is at 15,000 ft, hardly a challenging altitude as the rules allow you to be up to 14,000 ft for 30 minutes with no oxygen.

Standard up your nose cannulas get my readings to about 96% at 18,000 ft, their max usable altitude. I doubt the boom cannula can get there at 18,000 ft.

This makes me question the efficacy of delivering oxygen in the general vicinity of your nose rather than truly into your nose like standard cannulas. I'd also think that small movements of the boom position, perhaps inadvertent and unnoticed, can change the efficacy significantly. I also wonder about the effect of air movement around your face on the performance.

It would be interesting to see a chamber ride of the boom cannula and standard cannula side by side, spO2, O2 flow, etc, and how sensitive spO2 is to boom placement and air movement around the face.

Mike C.

You don't have a vent or blower moving air in your cockpit?

It seems obvious to me the boom cannula depends on raising the oxygen levels in the region under your nose. If there is air movement from vents, blowers, etc, in that area, then it would seem harder to maintain the concentration required.

The Rocket AirBoom has to use more oxygen than a traditional cannula, probably comparable to an over the face mask. There would be no other way to get the oxygen levels required than to put more out if some of it is lost to surrounding air.

Mike C.

You don't have a vent or blower moving air in your cockpit?

It seems obvious to me the boom cannula depends on raising the oxygen levels in the region under your nose. If there is air movement from vents, blowers, etc, in that area, then it would seem harder to maintain the concentration required.

The Rocket AirBoom has to use more oxygen than a traditional cannula, probably comparable to an over the face mask. There would be no other way to get the oxygen levels required than to put more out if some of it is lost to surrounding air.

Mike C.