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
|
|||
|
|||
Turbo performance vs non-turbo
Ok, another turbo question:
Can someone please explain to me the performance gain by going above 30" MP (say, during takeoff) on a turbo'd engine. How much better performance are you getting from the engine at say 35"MP on takeoff vs a non-turbo'd engine that's going to max out around 29"? Is it worth the strain put on the engine? I understand the turbo being able to maintain power at high altitudes, but I haven't heard it explained to me why I would need such a high power setting on takeoff/climb (assuming sea level field). |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
John Doe wrote: Ok, another turbo question: Can someone please explain to me the performance gain by going above 30" MP (say, during takeoff) on a turbo'd engine. How much better performance are you getting from the engine at say 35"MP on takeoff vs a non-turbo'd engine that's going to max out around 29"? Reduce manifold pressure to 23 inches on takeoff and tell me what it feels like. that's the difference. Is it worth the strain put on the engine? Only if you need it. I understand the turbo being able to maintain power at high altitudes, but I haven't heard it explained to me why I would need such a high power setting on takeoff/climb (assuming sea level field). For the same reason being able to maintain the sea level power is desirable, it's more power. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
: Can someone please explain to me the performance gain by going above 30" MP
: (say, during takeoff) on a turbo'd engine. Lots. : How much better performance are you getting from the engine at say 35"MP on : takeoff vs a non-turbo'd engine that's going to max out around 29"? As was mentioned before, try taking off in with a regular engine at less than full throttle. : Is it worth the strain put on the engine? I understand the turbo being able : to maintain power at high altitudes, but I haven't heard it explained to me : why I would need such a high power setting on takeoff/climb (assuming sea : level field). There are two different types of turbo systems. The former that you're familiar with is a "turbo-normalizer." It allows for sea-level manifold pressure at altitude. That does not add much more "strain" to the engine, although the inlet air temperature and cylinder cooling in the thinner air at altitude will still make it run hotter. That *can* be detrimental to longevity. The other type is "full-time turbo." With that, the engine is designed to withstand the additional stress of a larger load of air/fuel per power stroke. Basically, you get more power per cubic inch of engine. These types tend to run even hotter than their turbo-normalized siblings since they are producing more power. Unfortunately, in order to prevent a turbo'd engine from destroying itself due to detonation, the compression ratio of full-time turbo'd engines must be lowered. That reduces engine efficiency. For example, my mechanic's turbo Arrow has an TIO-360 Continental that's rated at 210hp at something like 35" MP. My carb'd O-360 Lycoming is rated at 180hp. If it were fuel-injected with angle-valve cylinders, it'd be rated at 200hp. That extra 10hp is all that is gained from 6" more MP because the compression ratio was lowered from 8.5:1 to 7:1. That's not a tradeoff I would be willing to make for any aircraft I owned. Turbo-normalized, yes... full-time turbo, I don't think so, but to each their own. -Cory -- ************************************************** *********************** * Cory Papenfuss * * Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student * * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * ************************************************** *********************** |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
I live out West were many airways are above 10,000 feet. When I'm at
14,000 in my non-turbo Mooney and only able to pull 18" of power, I can understand the benefit of a turbo. -Robert |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
You should get 35/29 the power.
Subtract a bit from that to account for the increased temperature of the input air, which is counteracted by an intercooler if you have one. The horse power increase is minimal, but every bit helps on take off. The real advantage is flying high. I don't fly over mountains, but I will try to fly at 14500 on cross countries because the speed gain is so much. On a standard day my arrow does 150Kts IAS = TAS at sea level. Take it up to 14000 and the TAS goes up to 180Kts and it lets me fly over low clouds instead of under them. The trade off in cost is significant. There is not much difference in initial cost or normal maintenance; It's all in overhaul. "John Doe" wrote in message news:2Hf0f.228$L24.111@lakeread01... |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 15:32:04 -0400, "John Doe"
wrote: Ok, another turbo question: Can someone please explain to me the performance gain by going above 30" MP (say, during takeoff) on a turbo'd engine. How much better performance are you getting from the engine at say 35"MP on takeoff vs a non-turbo'd engine that's going to max out around 29"? Is it worth the strain put on the engine? I understand the turbo being able to maintain power at high altitudes, but I haven't heard it explained to me why I would need such a high power setting on takeoff/climb (assuming sea level field). I'm not sure exactly what you are asking for. If you are taking off @ sea level on a standard day the performance difference between a turbo-supercharged engine rated @ 300 HP and a normally aspirated engine rated @ 300 HP is ZERO. During cruise flight, the performance difference between both engines at 65% or 75% power is ZERO. The "better performance" is derived by being able to develop rated TO power on the turbo-supercharged engine above sea level on a non-standard day. It also allows you to use cruise power settings at higher altitudes than a normally-aspirated engine. As one responder indicated, if your engine is rated @ 300 HP/36" MAP/2700 RPM, reducing either the MAP or the RPM is reducing the HP developed. TC |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 15:32:04 -0400, "John Doe" wrote: Ok, another turbo question: Can someone please explain to me the performance gain by going above 30" MP (say, during takeoff) on a turbo'd engine. How much better performance are you getting from the engine at say 35"MP on takeoff vs a non-turbo'd engine that's going to max out around 29"? Is it worth the strain put on the engine? I understand the turbo being able to maintain power at high altitudes, but I haven't heard it explained to me why I would need such a high power setting on takeoff/climb (assuming sea level field). I'm not sure exactly what you are asking for. If you are taking off @ sea level on a standard day the performance difference between a turbo-supercharged engine rated @ 300 HP and a normally aspirated engine rated @ 300 HP is ZERO. During cruise flight, the performance difference between both engines at 65% or 75% power is ZERO. The "better performance" is derived by being able to develop rated TO power on the turbo-supercharged engine above sea level on a non-standard day. It also allows you to use cruise power settings at higher altitudes than a normally-aspirated engine. As one responder indicated, if your engine is rated @ 300 HP/36" MAP/2700 RPM, reducing either the MAP or the RPM is reducing the HP developed. TC The previous responder answered my question. You actually have to be at 36" to get 300HP out of the engine. I wasn't sure how that worked, but the way he explained it makes sense. Seems like the turbo-normalized system is a better system. Either way, it's been good learning....thanks |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"John Doe" wrote in message news:2Hf0f.228$L24.111@lakeread01... Ok, another turbo question: Can someone please explain to me the performance gain by going above 30" MP (say, during takeoff) on a turbo'd engine. How much better performance are you getting from the engine at say 35"MP on takeoff vs a non-turbo'd engine that's going to max out around 29"? Is it worth the strain put on the engine? I understand the turbo being able to maintain power at high altitudes, but I haven't heard it explained to me why I would need such a high power setting on takeoff/climb (assuming sea level field). A turbo'ed engine is built more "solidly" than a normally aspirated. The contrasts/advantages can be learned he http://www.aopa.org/pilot/bonanza/turbo_primer.html For example: "As all pilots are taught, the atmosphere is piled up on the earth's surface. The weight of the atmosphere is determined by a barometer, or in airplanes, by the altimeter and the engine manifold pressure gauge. As an airplane ascends during a climb there is less atmosphere above it so the weight is less. This is important because it's the weight of the atmosphere that determines how much ambient air is pushed into the engine during the intake stroke. This means that a normally aspirated airplane loses power as it climbs — for instance, a Cessna 182 engine (a Continental O-470) can no longer deliver 65-percent power above approximately 7,000 feet msl." and " Advantages There are a number of advantages. The ability to climb strongly at any altitude between sea level and 20,000 feet gives the pilot amazing latitude for operation. First, he can safely operate out West, where there are some tall mountains. For instance, .the MEA (minimum en route altitude) between Portland, Oregon, and Yakima, Washington, is 14,500 feet. A normally aspirated airplane would not have much, if any, climb ability at that altitude — the turbonormalized (and the turbocharged) airplane could easily climb up there, and could climb smartly over most weather. The pilot also can comfortably operate at altitudes that are too high for normally aspirated airplanes and too low for economical operation of turbine airplanes — generally this is the 10,000- to 14,000-msl band. This means less conflicting traffic. The ability to fly at these altitudes also means the pilot can almost always find a smooth ride. This makes the airplane more comfortable for squeamish passengers who interpret every turbulent bump as a nudge from the devil. The ability to climb strongly means that, should in-flight icing be encountered, the pilot can usually climb up out of the icing band of weather. Studies show that the icing band of clouds is generally approximately 3,000 feet thick. Normally aspirated airplanes that encounter a quick buildup of ice are often faced with having to descend to avoid the icing layer, which limits safety options. Finally, the ability to deliver sea-level power up where the atmosphere is thin means that the engine can deliver a lot of thrust in a flight regime where the drag on the airplane is less. Thinner atmosphere = less drag. Less drag with the same power translates into higher true airspeeds. Tornado Alley Turbo advertises TAS of more than 200 knots at 18,000 feet. That's fast." -------------------------------------- For sea level and flat landers, there is limited advantage for a turbo, unless you want to attain high altitudes to climb above weather. For those of us in the Rocky Mountain west, it's virtually a necessity. People in here talk about occasionally taking off from high altitude airports (5000 feet on up); when you do it ALL the times, especially during summer's high density altitudes, you quickly appreciate it. -- Matt TN Bonanza 36 --------------------- Matthew W. Barrow Site-Fill Homes, LLC. Montrose, CO |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Matt Barrow wrote:
A turbo'ed engine is built more "solidly" than a normally aspirated. This would not be true of an engine which has had a turbo-charger added, would it? I see, for example, that the Commander that AOPA is renovating this year just had a turbo added via STC. George Patterson Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor. It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"George Patterson" wrote in message news:ZQl0f.5376$MO2.3022@trndny09... Matt Barrow wrote: A turbo'ed engine is built more "solidly" than a normally aspirated. This would not be true of an engine which has had a turbo-charger added, would it? It would be true for a factory turbo, but not an STC add-on I imagine. The IO-520 in the Beech F33's is different internally from the TSIO-520 in the B36-TC. Unfortuantely, it was not ideal, so the best upgrade is the TNIO-550, especially ones from such engine shops as Superior Airparts or Western Skyways. I see, for example, that the Commander that AOPA is renovating this year just had a turbo added via STC. I believe that's a Turbo Alley turbonormalizer, not a Turbo "supercharger". If not, I suspect the STC might require some "beefing up" of certain parts. -- Matt --------------------- Matthew W. Barrow Site-Fill Homes, LLC. Montrose, CO |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Ram Conversion Performance Specs? | O. Sami Saydjari | Owning | 2 | May 29th 05 04:37 PM |
Why turbo normalizer? | Robert M. Gary | Piloting | 61 | May 20th 05 04:33 PM |
Performance World Class design proposal | iPilot | Soaring | 85 | September 9th 04 09:11 PM |
Kitfox 7/Rotax 914 Performance Questions | Jim Carriere | Home Built | 2 | January 22nd 04 04:55 PM |
"I Want To FLY!"-(Youth) My store to raise funds for flying lessons | Curtl33 | General Aviation | 7 | January 9th 04 11:35 PM |