Why turbo normalizer?

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
groups.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

Big John wrote:

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.

Possibly, because the air is much thinner at 15K than 5K and thus
pulling the same power from the engine will cause it to run much hotter.
Depending on how much hotter it runs, wear can be accelerated and you
would certainly want to change your oil more often and run a semi-syn oil.


Matt

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

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

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...
That is my point.

Huh?

There does not appear to be any reason for anyone to
ever buy a turbo norm system.

Why not?

The engine runs just as hot/hard, etc at
altitude with a turbo norm vs. a regular turbo.

No, it does not. With a regular turbo, the engine would run even hotter and
harder at altitude.

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".

Which "turbo norm company" has made that statement?

However, the argument appears to be
worthless, in truth a turbo norm wears out your engine just as fast as
a regular turbo.

No, it doesn't.

I find it bizarre that you are complaining about statements made regarding
turbo-normalization compared to normally aspirated, but keep insisting on
making (incorrect) comparisons between turbo-normalization and regular
turbo-charging. The two are not relevant to each other.

If there's a specific statement from a "turbo norm company" that you take
issue with, let's see that statement and we can talk about it. Until then,
your inability to express your own discontent with any sort of consistency
makes it hard to even understand what your complaint is, never mind help you
understand what's wrong about it (assuming there is something wrong with
it).

Pete

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
egroups.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

"Big John" wrote in message
...
[...]
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??????

You'll have to define "more damage".

Yes, as Mike said there are at least a couple of issues that cause the same
power to result in hotter operating temperatures at higher altitudes than at
lower.

However, the increased temperatures may or may not result in damage, or even
increased wear. There's just the *potential* for increase in wear.
However, as far as I know, increased operating temperatures almost always
translate into decreased lifetime.

I'll agree that the turbo will require more maintenance it used but
engine no if run within engine manufacturers specs.

I'm having a hard time parsing that sentence.

IMHO, the bottom line here is that no one ought to expect a turbocharged
engine, turbonormalized or not, to require just as little maintenance as a
normally aspirated engine. But that's not an indictment of turbocharging.
It just means that with the significant benefit of turbo-charging, there
comes a cost.

As it happens, I feel that turbonormalization strikes a pretty good
compromise. Even more so when the installation isn't strictly
"normalization". Again, looking at my airplane as an example, the
turbocharged installation has 20hp more than the normally-aspirated version.
This isn't a lot of extra power, but it's enough to help compensate for the
extra weight of the turbocharger and give a little extra "oomph", without
significantly increasing the wear on the engine due to the power the engine
is making.

Yes, at altitude the engine runs hotter. It runs hotter than it would at
the same power setting down low, and it certainly runs hotter than a
normally-aspirated engine would at that altitude. But guess what? I go a
lot faster too, to the tune of about 20 knots compared to what my best
cruise speed at 8000' would be without a turbo. It's really nice being able
to maintain cruise power up into the oxygen altitudes, and I get a nice
true-airspeed boost as a result. As long as I'm not bucking a big headwind,
it's all good.

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 ).

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.

The turbo-charger itself has been remarkably maintenance free, especially
considering it uses an automatic wastegate. As an added bonus, it acts as a
muffler, so my airplane is somewhat quieter than similar-powered airplanes,
and noticeably quieter than the normally-aspirated version. Since it's a
seaplane, and since I do often operate in "well-habited" areas, this is a
nice side-benefit.

There is, of course, the acquisition cost too. Turbocharged airplanes seem
to run anywhere from $20-50K more than the normally-aspirated equivalent.

But given that airplanes are intentionally operated at above-sea-level
altitudes on a regular basis, I can't imagine owning another airplane
without turbocharging. Turbonormalized or otherwise.

IMHO, it's much more important to look at the maintenance history for a
given installation, than to try to paint all turbocharged aircraft with the
same brush. The effects of turbocharging have as much to do with how the
manufacturer recommends the engine is operated and the design of the
installation (especially with respect to cooling), as they do with
generalities about all turbochargers broadly.

Pete

"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

Not true, if the engine is cooled with adequite airflow. If you have an
instalation that is marginal at cooling a non turbo instalation at altitude,
and you put a turbo norm engine in it, yes, it will overheat and wear out.
Put enough air across it, and it will stay cool at 65%. There are all kinds
of flying examples to support this.

What is the difference at flying a well cooled turbo norm engine at 12,000ft
at 65%, and at flying it at sea level and 65%, if you keep it cool ?
--
Jim in NC

"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.

True, but you don't kick a turbo norm's ass running it at 40 inches at sea
level, like you run a regular turbo. Ultimate HP production is the killer,
if they both are kept cool.
--
Jim in NC

"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