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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Ok, so the turbo norm kits include a cooling system better than the
system used on regular turbos. I did not know that. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ... In addition, mountain flying is less dangerous. Ground speeds are still higher, and the prop can't convert the horsepower to quite as much thrust as it would at sea-level. But it's not nearly as much a reduction as I'd get without the turbocharger. Acceleration, even at max gross, is good as is the climb rate (handy when you are surrounded by high terrain ). Actually a constant speed prop converts HP into thrust about the same at all (reasonable) altitudes. That is one of the great advantages of a CS prop. Mike MU-2 |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
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 |