A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Why turbo normalizer?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 19th 05, 12:17 AM
Robert M. Gary
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

But runnnig your engine at 30" at 15,000 feet is MUCH harder on the
engine than running 30" at 5,000 feet. The engine runs hotter and
harder.

-Robert

  #2  
Old May 19th 05, 03:27 AM
Morgans
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
ups.com...
But runnnig your engine at 30" at 15,000 feet is MUCH harder on the
engine than running 30" at 5,000 feet. The engine runs hotter and
harder.

-Robert


65% is 65%, is 65%. All equal, no harder. That is the point of turbo
norm. The engine has not got a clue how high it is. MP is the same at sea
level or 15 thousand.

The only argument is the temp. Keep it cool. it is not that hard, nor is
it rocket science.
--
Jim in NC

  #3  
Old May 19th 05, 04:24 AM
Mike Rapoport
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
ups.com...
But runnnig your engine at 30" at 15,000 feet is MUCH harder on the
engine than running 30" at 5,000 feet. The engine runs hotter and
harder.

-Robert


65% is 65%, is 65%. All equal, no harder. That is the point of turbo
norm. The engine has not got a clue how high it is. MP is the same at
sea
level or 15 thousand.

The only argument is the temp. Keep it cool. it is not that hard, nor is
it rocket science.
--
Jim in NC


Yes the MP is the same but the CHTs will be much higher. Basically you are
trading better performance for higher temps. Turbo Lances can't make 75%
power above 16,000 on warm days without CHTs well over 400F. It really
isn't possible to produce a lot of power at high altitude without higher
temps. I think that Robert's point is that there is a tradeoff.

Mike
MU-2


  #4  
Old May 19th 05, 04:55 AM
Morgans
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Mike Rapoport" wrote

I think that Robert's point is that there is a tradeoff.


No, Robert's point is that your engine will melt into a molten puddle, in
very short order, if you use a turbo of any kind.
--
Jim in NC




  #5  
Old May 19th 05, 02:59 PM
Matt Barrow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
nk.net...


65% is 65%, is 65%. All equal, no harder. That is the point of turbo
norm. The engine has not got a clue how high it is. MP is the same at
sea
level or 15 thousand.

The only argument is the temp. Keep it cool. it is not that hard, nor

is
it rocket science.
--
Jim in NC


Yes the MP is the same but the CHTs will be much higher. Basically you

are
trading better performance for higher temps. Turbo Lances can't make 75%
power above 16,000 on warm days without CHTs well over 400F. It really
isn't possible to produce a lot of power at high altitude without higher
temps. I think that Robert's point is that there is a tradeoff.


Well, it's wrong. My CHT's are virtually the same (370-380) at 8000 as they
are at 16K.

Heat come from your mixture, and at higher altitude, there is less drag to
be overcome.

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


  #6  
Old May 19th 05, 03:21 PM
Mike Rapoport
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
nk.net...


65% is 65%, is 65%. All equal, no harder. That is the point of turbo
norm. The engine has not got a clue how high it is. MP is the same at
sea
level or 15 thousand.

The only argument is the temp. Keep it cool. it is not that hard, nor

is
it rocket science.
--
Jim in NC


Yes the MP is the same but the CHTs will be much higher. Basically you

are
trading better performance for higher temps. Turbo Lances can't make 75%
power above 16,000 on warm days without CHTs well over 400F. It really
isn't possible to produce a lot of power at high altitude without higher
temps. I think that Robert's point is that there is a tradeoff.


Well, it's wrong. My CHT's are virtually the same (370-380) at 8000 as
they
are at 16K.

Heat come from your mixture, and at higher altitude, there is less drag to
be overcome.

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


All things being equal the temperatures will be higher at higher altitudes.
It is a simple fact that less dense air does not cool as well. I'm not sure
what you are trying to say about less drag unless it is to point out the TAS
advantage of higher altitudes.

Mike
MU-2




  #7  
Old May 20th 05, 01:25 AM
Matt Barrow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
nk.net...


65% is 65%, is 65%. All equal, no harder. That is the point of

turbo
norm. The engine has not got a clue how high it is. MP is the same

at
sea
level or 15 thousand.

The only argument is the temp. Keep it cool. it is not that hard,

nor
is
it rocket science.
--
Jim in NC


Yes the MP is the same but the CHTs will be much higher. Basically you

are
trading better performance for higher temps. Turbo Lances can't make

75%
power above 16,000 on warm days without CHTs well over 400F. It really
isn't possible to produce a lot of power at high altitude without

higher
temps. I think that Robert's point is that there is a tradeoff.


Well, it's wrong. My CHT's are virtually the same (370-380) at 8000 as
they
are at 16K.

Heat come from your mixture, and at higher altitude, there is less drag

to
be overcome.

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


All things being equal the temperatures will be higher at higher

altitudes.
It is a simple fact that less dense air does not cool as well.


Is there a mathematical comparison for lower temp/air density versus higher
temp/density?

I'm not sure
what you are trying to say about less drag unless it is to point out the

TAS
advantage of higher altitudes.


I was responding to the need to produce higher power versus at lower
altitude for a given speed. Properly leaned, I can get roughly the same TAS
and CHT temps at higher altitude than lower IF PROPERLY LEANED. Note the
graphs in Deakins' articles on AvWeb.




  #8  
Old May 19th 05, 02:57 PM
Matt Barrow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
ups.com...
But runnnig your engine at 30" at 15,000 feet is MUCH harder on the
engine than running 30" at 5,000 feet. The engine runs hotter and
harder.


(Where are you getting this information from?)



No, it isn't. MOF, it's probably easier as the air temp is colder and thus
aerodynamic cooling of the engine compartment will be more efficient.


Matt (TN Beech B36)
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO


  #9  
Old May 19th 05, 03:28 PM
Mike Rapoport
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
ups.com...
But runnnig your engine at 30" at 15,000 feet is MUCH harder on the
engine than running 30" at 5,000 feet. The engine runs hotter and
harder.


(Where are you getting this information from?)



No, it isn't. MOF, it's probably easier as the air temp is colder and thus
aerodynamic cooling of the engine compartment will be more efficient.


Matt (TN Beech B36)
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO



The lower ambient temperatures don't compensate for the decreased mass flow.
Temperatures rise with altitude. It is a big issue for the preasurized
piston planes flying over FL250.

Mike
MU-2


  #10  
Old May 20th 05, 01:13 AM
Matt Barrow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
ups.com...
But runnnig your engine at 30" at 15,000 feet is MUCH harder on the
engine than running 30" at 5,000 feet. The engine runs hotter and
harder.


(Where are you getting this information from?)



No, it isn't. MOF, it's probably easier as the air temp is colder and

thus
aerodynamic cooling of the engine compartment will be more efficient.


Matt (TN Beech B36)
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO



The lower ambient temperatures don't compensate for the decreased mass

flow.
Temperatures rise with altitude. It is a big issue for the preasurized
piston planes flying over FL250.

So which would provide better cooling: 8000 feet and 80 degrees, or 16000
and -20?



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FS: Duo Discus Turbo - Texas, USA Mark Zivley Soaring 2 May 4th 05 11:34 PM
turbo stc? The Weiss Family Owning 21 October 3rd 04 10:35 PM
Turbo prop AT-6/SNJ? frank may Military Aviation 11 September 5th 04 02:51 PM
Turbo 182: correct mixture for final approach at high altitude? Barry Klein Piloting 38 January 15th 04 03:25 AM
A36 Bonanza turbo prop Jeff Owning 46 January 7th 04 02:37 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.