Why turbo normalizer?

The engine is going to be considerably hotter running at 65% at 15,000' than
at 5,000'.

Mike
MU-2

"Big John" wrote in message
...
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
groups.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

Mike

Have you ever seen a flat 4/6 run hot at any altitude at 65% power?

If your at 15K and engine is running 'hot' what do you do? Increase
IAS, open cowel flaps or reduce power.

My Mooney was as tightly coweled as anything I ever saw. On climb out
after TO I used 120 mph to keep engine cool. It took longer to get to
altitude but I made up for it by a long shallow descent at max IAS at
destination. No shock cooling doing this. Block time was the same as
Tech Order climb and dump for descent.

When are you going to get out of that widow maker )

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

On Wed, 18 May 2005 19:22:04 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote:

The engine is going to be considerably hotter running at 65% at 15,000' than
at 5,000'.

Mike
MU-2

"Big John" wrote in message
.. .
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
egroups.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

Hot is relative. It will certainly run *hotter*. Yes I have seen the
engine in a Turbo Lance (540S1AD) run hot at 19,000' at fairly low. An
intercooler helps but it will still run hotter. One of the surprises with
my Helio (GO480) is how low the CHT run (never seen over 375F) even though
the rated HP per cu in is higher than the Turbo Lance. I hadn't flown a
normaly aspirated piston except in primary training, so I just assumed that
400F was normal.

Flying the MU-2 is as easy as flying anything else once you learn how. You
just fly it by the numbers and everything will be OK. A lot of guys can't
seem to do that and the training centers used to sign them off (they stopped
when they lost a few lawsuits). The guys flying Barons that think that
3000' of runway is too short, or think that a Mooney is "slippery" have no
business flying a MU-2 or any high performane airplane for that matter. It
has to be flown like a swept wing jet. I haven't flown a great number of
different airplanes so perhaps it is harder than average, I don't know. I
may get rid of it soon because I just don't use it very much anymore. I
hate to sell it because I feel totally secure and comfortable in it in all
weather (most of my flying is IMC, over the mountains, in icing, often at
night with very high winds. It is a perfect airplane for that kind of
flying. The unfortunate reality is that now that I am only flying it
~125hrs/yr it is *costing* me a lot of *time* as well as money. The four
day trip for recurrent training is only spread over 125total flight hrs and
20 of those hours are just to get to training and another 10 or so are to
get somewhere for maitenance. The math works out to one hour of
maitenance/training overhead for every productive flight hour which means
the plane is effectively only half as fast. It has also pushed the
cost/effective flight hour to well over $1000.

I can see Roberts point about engine life being potentially reduced but I
think that you are also getting a lot of advantages with turbocharging.

Mike
MU-2

"Big John" wrote in message
...
Mike

Have you ever seen a flat 4/6 run hot at any altitude at 65% power?

If your at 15K and engine is running 'hot' what do you do? Increase
IAS, open cowel flaps or reduce power.

My Mooney was as tightly coweled as anything I ever saw. On climb out
after TO I used 120 mph to keep engine cool. It took longer to get to
altitude but I made up for it by a long shallow descent at max IAS at
destination. No shock cooling doing this. Block time was the same as
Tech Order climb and dump for descent.

When are you going to get out of that widow maker )

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

On Wed, 18 May 2005 19:22:04 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote:

The engine is going to be considerably hotter running at 65% at 15,000'
than
at 5,000'.

Mike
MU-2

"Big John" wrote in message
. ..
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
legroups.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

In article et, Mike Rapoport wrote:
...get somewhere for maitenance. The math works out to one hour of
maitenance/training overhead for every productive flight hour which means
the plane is effectively only half as fast. It has also pushed the
cost/effective flight hour to well over $1000.

The thing is - is there an aircraft that WON'T have that overhead that
will give you the reliability of the MU-2? Anything turbocharged/piston
is likely to need more maintenance and just as much recurrent training.

If it's not a high end pressurized turboed piston twin, you end up
stooging around at low altitude like the rest of us and that kills your
mostly all-weather capability.

--
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"

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
In article et, Mike
Rapoport wrote:
...get somewhere for maitenance. The math works out to one hour of
maitenance/training overhead for every productive flight hour which means
the plane is effectively only half as fast. It has also pushed the
cost/effective flight hour to well over $1000.

The thing is - is there an aircraft that WON'T have that overhead that
will give you the reliability of the MU-2? Anything turbocharged/piston
is likely to need more maintenance and just as much recurrent training.

If it's not a high end pressurized turboed piston twin, you end up
stooging around at low altitude like the rest of us and that kills your
mostly all-weather capability.

--
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"

Agreed, it is not a problem with the airplane, it is a problem with low
utilization, need for specialized maitenance and trainig (neither availible
locally).. I would not get another airplane to replace it, the plan is to
charter.

Mike
MU-2