I owned a 1962 Mooney with a manual Ray-Jay turbo retrofitted.

Live in Houston (sea level) and just used the normal engine 29-30
inches for take off here.

Also had built in Oxy (retrofitted) and at altitude I could crank in
the Turbo and get sea level cruise power or the 29"-30" take off power
between 15K and 20K (forget just where turbo started to give out).

When I went to Denver I would put in full throttle (23-24 inches as I
recall) and then cranked in the tubo until I had the 29-30 inches
(availabel at sea level) and got full horse power for take off and
climb.

Never pulled over 29-30 inches max so engine went to TBO without any
problem.

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ```````````````````````````````

On 14 May 2005 14:25:57 -0700, "Robert M. Gary"
wrote:

This started on a Mooney list. I cannot for the life of me (and an
engineering degree) figure out why a turbo normalizer would be any
easier on an engine than a regular turbo. Is this just marketing crap
from the turbo normalizer people? Turbo'd engines cost more to run
because of the increased stress on the cylinders, rings, etc do to the
pressure. Running an engine at 30MP when outside is 20" is just as much
pressure difference as running at 40MP when outside is 30". It seems
like the turbo norm crowd is trying to confuse people. Unless the
entire engine was pressurized to 30", you should expect turbo style
stressed on your engine when running 30" when outside is 20". This is
*much* different than running 30" when outside is 30" (down low). Am I
missing something?

-Robert