Why turbo normalizer?

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
In article et, Mike
Rapoport wrote:
...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.

The thing is - is there an aircraft that WON'T have that overhead that
will give you the reliability of the MU-2? Anything turbocharged/piston
is likely to need more maintenance and just as much recurrent training.

If it's not a high end pressurized turboed piston twin, you end up
stooging around at low altitude like the rest of us and that kills your
mostly all-weather capability.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

Agreed, it is not a problem with the airplane, it is a problem with low
utilization, need for specialized maitenance and trainig (neither availible
locally).. I would not get another airplane to replace it, the plan is to
charter.

Mike
MU-2

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

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...



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.

The lower ambient temperatures don't compensate for the decreased mass
flow.
True, especially if the cowling/baffling is badly done, there isn't an
intercooler...

and:
"There's another hitch in the git-along, with turbos. There are several
conditions where they sort of lay down on the job, and you'll see the MP
running lower than it ought to. While your engine is converting dollars to
noise, it's also converting fuel to energy, and a large part of that energy
(and noise) goes out the exhaust stack. That's the whole idea behind the
turbo, to recapture some of that lost energy in the exhaust. Anything that
reduces that exhaust energy deprives the turbo of its driving force, which
causes a loss in turbo RPM, which causes a loss of upper deck pressure,
which (you guessed it) causes a loss of MP. If you took the engine into
outer space, it couldn't produce any power at all (no air), and the turbo
couldn't produce any increase in the MP at all. We don't need to go that
high to see the effect, an altitude in the high teens will do it, and the
warmer the OAT, the more loss you'll see. On a really hot day on my engine,
you might see the full-throttle MP start dropping off at 15,000 feet, on a
cold day it might hold full MP to some altitude above 20,000 feet. TATurbo
now has an improved intercooler and induction system that is making full
redline manifold pressure, at 22,000', lean of peak, even on very hot days."

http://www.avweb.com/newspics/pp34_c...uise_17500.jpg (Note the CHT line)

From article http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182105-1.html

The BIGGEST factor is going to be the MIXTURE.

Are they going to be equal, no