Why turbo normalizer?

"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.