Why turbo normalizer?

In article , Morgans wrote:
Not true, if the engine is cooled with adequite airflow.

And possibly a better cooling system.

I like flying a friend's Europa. It is turboccharged (i.e. turbo
supercharged, not turbo normalized), and has thermostatically controlled
liquid cooling, and automatic turbo control. Additionally, the constant
speed prop is set by putting the selector in 'Take off', 'Climb',
'Cruise' (you can also switch it into a simple variable pitch prop, or
make it constantly variable, or feather it).

Cruise is simply a matter of putting the prop switch into the 'Cruise'
detent and setting the MP at your desired power setting. Mixture control
is automatic, too. That's the way to fly.

I've never seen that engine run particularly hot.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...
That is my point. There does not appear to be any reason for anyone to
ever buy a turbo norm system. The engine runs just as hot/hard, etc at
altitude with a turbo norm vs. a regular turbo.

True, but you don't kick a turbo norm's ass running it at 40 inches at sea
level, like you run a regular turbo. Ultimate HP production is the killer,
if they both are kept cool.
--
Jim in NC

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...

That is my point. There does not appear to be any reason for anyone to
ever buy a turbo norm system. The engine runs just as hot/hard, etc at
altitude with a turbo norm vs. a regular turbo.

A turbo norm system simply replaces the power the engine would normally
make at sea level. A regular turbo system attempts to get more power
out of a smaller engine. The larger turbo normalized engine will last
longer because it isn't working as hard. It will cost less in the long
run to operate and be more reliable.

However, the argument appears to be
worthless, in truth a turbo norm wears out your engine just as fast as
a regular turbo.

I don't think anybody ever said that. They said that a turbo (of any
sort) increases wear, at the very least due to lowered cooling ability.
A turbo normalizer doesn't let you do more than rated power. A turbo
supercharger does. This makes more more wear.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...
That is my point. There does not appear to be any reason for anyone to
ever buy a turbo norm system. The engine runs just as hot/hard, etc at
altitude with a turbo norm vs. a regular turbo. The turbo norm
companies try to trick people into thinking that putting a turbo norm
on your engine will not wear your engine any more than normal asp
because you never get over 30". However, the argument appears to be
worthless, in truth a turbo norm wears out your engine just as fast as
a regular turbo.

-Robert


I would disagree, there are a lot of reasons to buy a turbo (nomalizer or
otherwise). To fly higher, fly faster, climb much faster, takeoff shorter
(much shorter at high DA).

Mike
MU-2

Mike Rapoport wrote:




I would disagree, there are a lot of reasons to buy a turbo (nomalizer or
otherwise). To fly higher, fly faster, climb much faster, takeoff shorter
(much shorter at high DA).

You also have to look at your options. I will be putting the Pponk
engine into my 182 next fall. It is 275 HP. My airplane will
outperform the Turbo 182's until the density altitude reduces my 275 HP
to less than the 230 HP of the turbo engine. And since I am buying it
for takeoff and climb performance and not cruise speed I will always
outperform the turbo because my typical mountain flying mission always
allows me to have more than 230 HP available. The breakeven point is
84% power.

"Newps" wrote in message
...


Mike Rapoport wrote:




I would disagree, there are a lot of reasons to buy a turbo (nomalizer or
otherwise). To fly higher, fly faster, climb much faster, takeoff
shorter (much shorter at high DA).

You also have to look at your options. I will be putting the Pponk engine
into my 182 next fall. It is 275 HP. My airplane will outperform the
Turbo 182's until the density altitude reduces my 275 HP to less than the
230 HP of the turbo engine. And since I am buying it for takeoff and
climb performance and not cruise speed I will always outperform the turbo
because my typical mountain flying mission always allows me to have more
than 230 HP available. The breakeven point is 84% power.

Agreed. The ultimate for the Helio is the 450hp Allison engine. Although
it is a turbine and therefore loses power with altitude like a normally
aspirated piston, it still have more power than a turbo normalized recip and
is significantly lighter as well.

I am somewhat surprised that you always have 84% power availible for takeoff
in the mountains.


Mike
MU-2

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message news:hyTie.4294
I would disagree, there are a lot of reasons to buy a turbo (nomalizer or
otherwise). To fly higher, fly faster, climb much faster, takeoff shorter
(much shorter at high DA).


In the case of the B36TC, your TBO goes up 100 hours.


Here is some data and examples (Check the brochure links at the bottom of
the page).
http://www.taturbo.com/tcppr.html

Here is the contrast from a TSIO-520 to a TNIO-550
http://www.taturbo.com/performance.html

Reference http://www.taturbo.com/houtbk.jpg


Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...
[...] In the Mooney
community is mostly agreed that a 201 (non turbo) will give you twice
the cylinder life as a 231 (turbo). Other wear factors (heat, less air
over the cylinders) are the same for turbo-norm vs. regular turbo. The
only difference I can see is the "idiot" difference of accidently over
boosting.

Exactly what Mike said. Any kind of turbocharging will shorten the lifespan
of a given engine. The whole point of a turbocharger, even
turbo-normalizing, is to allow the engine to produce more power in certain
situations than it otherwise would have. More power means more wear and
tear.

Turbo-normalizing isn't as hard on an engine as "non-normalized"
turbocharging, but it still makes more power some of the time than the same
engine without a turbocharger would (and on top of that, the increase in
power is in situations when the air is less dense, making cooling more
difficult...again, more heat, more wear). That time spent making more power
results in more wear and tear.

Pete

Peter

Let me pose some what if's.

I have a turbo normalized engine. Going cross country I cruise at 5K
and 65% power. Turbo is off.

I then go on another XC and cruise at 15K and use turbo to pull 65%.

Are you saying that cruising at 65% with turbo on will do more damage
to engine than pulling 65% with turbo off??????

I'll agree that the turbo will require more maintenance it used but
engine no if run within engine manufacturers specs.

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

On Mon, 16 May 2005 14:36:27 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
roups.com...
[...] In the Mooney
community is mostly agreed that a 201 (non turbo) will give you twice
the cylinder life as a 231 (turbo). Other wear factors (heat, less air
over the cylinders) are the same for turbo-norm vs. regular turbo. The
only difference I can see is the "idiot" difference of accidently over
boosting.

Exactly what Mike said. Any kind of turbocharging will shorten the lifespan
of a given engine. The whole point of a turbocharger, even
turbo-normalizing, is to allow the engine to produce more power in certain
situations than it otherwise would have. More power means more wear and
tear.

Turbo-normalizing isn't as hard on an engine as "non-normalized"
turbocharging, but it still makes more power some of the time than the same
engine without a turbocharger would (and on top of that, the increase in
power is in situations when the air is less dense, making cooling more
difficult...again, more heat, more wear). That time spent making more power
results in more wear and tear.

Pete