If it had more compressor capacity then we would want a larger turbine for
more power. The real question is how high do you want to go in an
unpreasurized airplane?

The notion of needing *more* reminds me of a story of Mark Donahue and the
Porsche 917. After a test lap, the engineers asked Donahue what the car
needed. He responded: "It needs more power" (the engine was already making
1200hp), so they turned up the boost and he went out on the track again.
When he returned the engineers asked what the car needed now. Donahue
responded: "It needs more power". The engineers asked how much power did
the car need and Donahue responded: "Enough power to spin the wheels down
the longest straight in the (CanAM) series...then it will need a bigger
wing...then more power...

The need for more never ends.

Mike
MU-2


wrote in message
...
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:33:44 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote:

For the @$&*^! time, who cares what the "full fuel" payload is? It is
totally meaningless.What matters is the payload with enough fuel to fly
the
same mission. This may be the same thing in your example with the 172
and
Turbo Bonanza but the notion of "full fuel payload" is one of my pet
peeves.
If the plane can carry more than one pilot with full fuel, then the tanks
are too small.

Mike
MJ-2

If you're really interested in this debate, you oughta look into real
world numbers with respect to the 250-powered 36.

You're a turbine guy, you should be familiar with the effects/affects
of altitude with respect to turbine temp and available power produced
at altitude.

Unless things have changed one heckuva lot since I researched one for
a customer, the turbine A36 needs one heckuva lot more compressor.

TC