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
|
|||
|
|||
Why turbo normalizer?
This started on a Mooney list. I cannot for the life of me (and an
engineering degree) figure out why a turbo normalizer would be any easier on an engine than a regular turbo. Is this just marketing crap from the turbo normalizer people? Turbo'd engines cost more to run because of the increased stress on the cylinders, rings, etc do to the pressure. Running an engine at 30MP when outside is 20" is just as much pressure difference as running at 40MP when outside is 30". It seems like the turbo norm crowd is trying to confuse people. Unless the entire engine was pressurized to 30", you should expect turbo style stressed on your engine when running 30" when outside is 20". This is *much* different than running 30" when outside is 30" (down low). Am I missing something? -Robert |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
I cannot for the life of me (and an
engineering degree) figure out why a turbo normalizer would be any easier on an engine than a regular turbo. [...] Running an engine at 30MP when outside is 20" is just as much pressure difference as running at 40MP when outside is 30". I don't do turbo (I like to fly low anyway) but my understanding from ground school is that it is not the pressure -difference- that makes the difference. It is the pressure for which the engine was designed. A turbo normalizer merely makes up the difference between where you are (high) and sea level, so the engine can develop as much horsepower at altitude as it could at sea level. The engine was =designed= for that much horsepower, so all is well. A turbo supercharger pumps more air into the engine than even sea level pressure would give it, allowing more fuel to be burned, and more power to be generated, than the engine was originally designed for. This is hard on the engine. Or something like that. Jose -- Money: what you need when you run out of brains. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com... This started on a Mooney list. I cannot for the life of me (and an engineering degree) figure out why a turbo normalizer would be any easier on an engine than a regular turbo. Is this just marketing crap from the turbo normalizer people? Turbo'd engines cost more to run because of the increased stress on the cylinders, rings, etc do to the pressure. Running an engine at 30MP when outside is 20" is just as much pressure difference as running at 40MP when outside is 30". It's not the 10" difference that matters. It's the new number after it's been multiplied to take into account compression and combustion pressures. Compression alone multiplies the number by about 8 (typically), but because the turbo is packing so much more air and fuel into the cylinder, the combustion pressures go up at a much greater rate. After considering the multiplicative effects, the ambient baseline is irrelevant. It's the absolute pressure that's the big deal, and it's higher when you turbocharge. Of course, for some engines, even a 30" MP while the engine is running could be an issue, at least for long periods of time. There's a reason some engines are limited to full power for some period of time (5 minutes, for example). Comparing turbo-normalization and turbocharging above sea level pressure only makes sense when you are comparing apples-to-apples (ie same basic engine). It seems like the turbo norm crowd is trying to confuse people. What statement by the "turbo norm crowd" do you find confusing? Unless the entire engine was pressurized to 30", you should expect turbo style stressed on your engine when running 30" when outside is 20". Wrong. See above. This is *much* different than running 30" when outside is 30" (down low). Am I missing something? It appears that what you are missing is that the ambient air pressure doesn't really matter, not in this context. Now, all that said, it's not entirely true that turbonormalization is no harder on an engine than running the engine at sea level. At altitude, the ambient air may be cooler, but there's a lot less of it for cooling. In addition, compresing the induction air heats it up. So even a turbonormalized engine may run hotter than a normally aspirated engine would at the same MP. But it is true that turbo-normalization doesn't stress a given engine as much as turbo-charging above sea level pressure. Pete |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Michael Nouak" wrote in message
... I always thought that "turbo-normalized" is just another way of saying "turbo-charged?" I. e. that they're both the same? Turbo-normalized always means turbo-charged. Turbo-charged does not always mean turbo-normalized. Turbo-normalized means that the induction pressure is limited to normal sea level pressure (30"). Many turbocharged installations raise induction pressure to higher than this, and thus are not "turbo-normalized". Pete |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
That clears it up, thanks
Mike "Peter Duniho" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ... "Michael Nouak" wrote in message ... I always thought that "turbo-normalized" is just another way of saying "turbo-charged?" I. e. that they're both the same? Turbo-normalized always means turbo-charged. Turbo-charged does not always mean turbo-normalized. Turbo-normalized means that the induction pressure is limited to normal sea level pressure (30"). Many turbocharged installations raise induction pressure to higher than this, and thus are not "turbo-normalized". Pete |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Robert M. Gary wrote: Am I missing something? -Robert The intake manifold pressure to ambient pressure differential is probably the least important value in the equations you are discussing. This comes down to the total generated power of the powerplant. The engine is rated to make "X" horsepower. Lets say "200". At sea level. On a standard day. As you climb, the higher pressure altitude (and presumably higher density altitude) results in not being able to develop that full 200 hp. Pressurizing the plenum with a turbocharger or supercharger allows that power to be generated at higher altitude.. but you already knew that. If you go boosting the engine to 2-3 ATM you can make a BUTTLOAD of power but the reliability will be in the toilet. WWII piston fighters and bombers used to run MAP's in the 40-50-60" range.. but long term reliability wasn't the primary issue for them. Turbo-normalizing is a limited form of turbocharging that results in the power being generated being limited to about what a normally aspirated engine makes at sea level. The Crankshaft, prop, pistons, rods and other "stuff" in the engine is subjected to no more stress than the engine would be at sea level (with some limitations - the turbocharged air is warmer, so there is a power loss and potential for detonation.. the air at altitude for cooling is less dense, so its cooling ability across intercoolers and cylinders is lessened... you get the drift). Heavily turbocharged engines dont have short TBO's because of inlet plenum failure due to air pressure fatigue.. they have short TBO's (when operated improperly) due to cracked cranks, overheated cylinders, excessive wear type stuff. So.. no.. its not a marketing gimmick. Turbonormalizing an engine isnt as big a deal, because the engine is not intended to exceed its original "normally aspirated" sea level power rating. Make sense? Dave |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Dave S" wrote in message
k.net... [...] So.. no.. its not a marketing gimmick. Turbonormalizing an engine isnt as big a deal, because the engine is not intended to exceed its original "normally aspirated" sea level power rating. Thanks Dave...you explained it much better than I did. I left out a lot of details that, in hindsight, would have really helped get the point across. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Peter Duniho wrote: "Dave S" wrote in message k.net... [...] So.. no.. its not a marketing gimmick. Turbonormalizing an engine isnt as big a deal, because the engine is not intended to exceed its original "normally aspirated" sea level power rating. Thanks Dave...you explained it much better than I did. I left out a lot of details that, in hindsight, would have really helped get the point across. If anyone wants even further info on the matter, I would say go to Avweb and look up John Deakin's columns on "Those Fire Breathing Turbo's". www.avweb.com , link to columns, and his stuff is in there. Dave |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Dave S" wrote in message k.net... Peter Duniho wrote: "Dave S" wrote in message k.net... [...] So.. no.. its not a marketing gimmick. Turbonormalizing an engine isnt as big a deal, because the engine is not intended to exceed its original "normally aspirated" sea level power rating. Thanks Dave...you explained it much better than I did. I left out a lot of details that, in hindsight, would have really helped get the point across. If anyone wants even further info on the matter, I would say go to Avweb and look up John Deakin's columns on "Those Fire Breathing Turbo's". www.avweb.com , link to columns, and his stuff is in there. http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182146-1.html |
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 |