Why turbo normalizer?

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...
"Why Choose a Turbo-Normalizer
Instead of a Turbo-Booster?"

http://www.m-20turbos.com/choose.htm

With which statement on that page do you take issue?

Note that they are talking about using inter-cooling and "after-cooling"
(not sure what that is). For sure, inter-cooling can do a lot to address
the issue of higher operating temperatures, by counter-acting the
temperature rise that occurs due to compression.

Regardless, unless you are trying to say that you disagree with the entire
page, providing just the link really does very little to explain to us what
it is you have trouble with. I don't see anything obviously wrong with the
statements made on the page (though I can't comment on some of them, such as
the legalities of turbo-boosting the particular installations they are
talking about for example).

Pete

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

Really? I just assumed that with air density lower, the prop (CS or
otherwise) had less air available to move, and thus could not produce
sea-level thrust.

I guess in that case, my longer take-off runs are solely due to the higher
true speed required. Still, that's a significant effect. I just don't want
anyone thinking that a turbocharger makes high-altitude takeoffs just like
sea-level.

Pete

On 18 May 2005 19:52:12 -0700, "Robert M. Gary"
wrote:

"Why Choose a Turbo-Normalizer
Instead of a Turbo-Booster?"

http://www.m-20turbos.com/choose.htm

Simple really.

I could add a turbo normalizer to my engine while changing little
else.

If I added a turbocharger, I'd have to put in lower compression
pistons, but depending on the STC could get more HP.

IOW, you can basically add the turbonormalizer to almost any engine,
but you can't do that with a turbocharger. If you limit the boost of
the turbocharger you have just turned it into a turbonormalizer.


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Wed, 18 May 2005 17:33:58 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

What's the cost? Well, I can't speak for the average. But in my own case,
I have had a "mini top overhaul" (replaced one piston, due to leaking rings
on that piston, causing erosion of the piston head), and have had to replace
all of the exhaust valves and guides. I don't even know that this was due
to the turbo-charger, but certainly it seems that the extra heat may have
accelerated the wear, if not caused it entirely.

There was a website devoted to the wear of Lycoming valve guides that
went into design and development of Lycoming engines, and also what
they think is the actual problem causing the premature wear in certain
models of Lycomings.

You probably can find it by Googling "lycoming valve guide wear".

To synopsize, the mechanics who took it upon themselves to research
the problem feel that it is Lycoming's use of a particular type of cam
follower or lifter, that has created the situation (of accelerated
valve guide wear).

Lycoming patterned their original lifter after those used by flathead
engines. Since flathead engines have the valves in the block, not the
head, the lifter design, which was not intended to flow much oil
through it, worked fine.

But when this lifter was used in Lycoming's overhead designs, there
were problems because not much oil was getting to the valve guides and
they suffered premature wear.

Many of the fixes for those engines that suffered the most are fixes
that bring more oil to the valve guide area, according to this well
documented and extensive three or four part article.

But the conclusion of the article is that Lycoming does not have the
in-house engineers to come up with a real fix at this point.

Corky Scott

On Thu, 19 May 2005 09:07:42 -0400, Corky Scott
wrote:

There was a website devoted to the wear of Lycoming valve guides that
went into design and development of Lycoming engines, and also what
they think is the actual problem causing the premature wear in certain
models of Lycomings.

Here's the article I was referring to:
http://precisionengine.home.mindspring.com/engine1.htm

Corky Scott

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message news:hyTie.4294
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).


In the case of the B36TC, your TBO goes up 100 hours.


Here is some data and examples (Check the brochure links at the bottom of
the page).
http://www.taturbo.com/tcppr.html

Here is the contrast from a TSIO-520 to a TNIO-550
http://www.taturbo.com/performance.html

Reference http://www.taturbo.com/houtbk.jpg


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

"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

"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

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

"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.

Some of them.

In the Bonanza conversions, you would need a new prop or else your engine is
placarded to limit MP.


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

"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 May 2005 09:07:42 -0400, Corky Scott
wrote:

There was a website devoted to the wear of Lycoming valve guides that
went into design and development of Lycoming engines, and also what
they think is the actual problem causing the premature wear in certain
models of Lycomings.

Here's the article I was referring to:
http://precisionengine.home.mindspring.com/engine1.htm

Corky Scott
Also...

(Fried Valves) http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182155-1.html


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