|
| 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. |
|
|||||||
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
May 19th 05, 12:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
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
May 19th 05, 03:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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
May 19th 05, 04:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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
May 19th 05, 04:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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
May 19th 05, 02:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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
May 19th 05, 03:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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
May 20th 05, 01:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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
May 19th 05, 02:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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
May 19th 05, 03:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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
May 20th 05, 01:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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 | |
|
|
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 |
Hybrid Mode
