DG goes the sustainer option.

[Paul]

Looks like DG have succumbed to market forces by annoucing they will produce
a "Turbo" version of the 808. See
http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/dg-808st-e.html Also has the 600kg all up
weight. Nice.

[BTIZ]

the standard engines get a little anemic out here in the western high
desert.. (US)

BT

"Paul" > wrote in message
...
> Looks like DG have succumbed to market forces by annoucing they will
produce
> a "Turbo" version of the 808. See
> http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/dg-808st-e.html Also has the 600kg all up
> weight. Nice.
>
>

[Bruce Hoult]

In article <Ldyuc.3832$lL1.2063@fed1read03>,
"BTIZ" > wrote:

> "Paul" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Looks like DG have succumbed to market forces by annoucing they
> > will produce a "Turbo" version of the 808. See
> > http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/dg-808st-e.html Also has the 600kg all
> > up weight. Nice.
>
> the standard engines get a little anemic out here in the western high
> desert.. (US)

Uhhh ... that would appear to be a non sequitur. A "turbo" is a power
improvement over a standard glider ... it's a big step down in power
(and price) from a standard engine.

-- Bruce

[Doug Hoffman]

Someone please correct me if I've got this wrong. I thought the term
"Turbo" as it applies to gliders means that the sustainer engine can be
started simply by using the propeller(s): i.e., the forward movement of the
glider thru the air will cause the propeller(s) to act as a "turbine" to
start the engine(hence the term turbo). Weight savings are realized due to
lack of electric starter (and battery?).

Regards,

-Doug


Bruce Hoult wrote:

> In article <Ldyuc.3832$lL1.2063@fed1read03>,
> "BTIZ" > wrote:
>
>> "Paul" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Looks like DG have succumbed to market forces by annoucing they
>>> will produce a "Turbo" version of the 808. See
>>> http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/dg-808st-e.html Also has the 600kg all
>>> up weight. Nice.
>>
>> the standard engines get a little anemic out here in the western high
>> desert.. (US)
>
> Uhhh ... that would appear to be a non sequitur. A "turbo" is a power
> improvement over a standard glider ... it's a big step down in power
> (and price) from a standard engine.
>
> -- Bruce

[Gary Evans]

That's a correct definition of TURBO. As you mentioned
they weigh less because of not having a starter and
the large battery system but also because they use
smaller direct drive engines thereby eliminating the
reduction drive.

At 11:24 31 May 2004, Doug Hoffman wrote:
>Someone please correct me if I've got this wrong.
>I thought the term
>'Turbo' as it applies to gliders means that the sustainer
>engine can be
>started simply by using the propeller(s): i.e., the
>forward movement of the
>glider thru the air will cause the propeller(s) to
>act as a 'turbine' to
>start the engine(hence the term turbo). Weight savings
>are realized due to
>lack of electric starter (and battery?).
>
>Regards,
>
>-Doug
>
>
>Bruce Hoult wrote:
>
>> In article ,
>> 'BTIZ' wrote:
>>
>>> 'Paul' wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Looks like DG have succumbed to market forces by annoucing
>>>>they
>>>> will produce a 'Turbo' version of the 808. See
>>>> http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/dg-808st-e.html Also
>>>>has the 600kg all
>>>> up weight. Nice.
>>>
>>> the standard engines get a little anemic out here
>>>in the western high
>>> desert.. (US)
>>
>> Uhhh ... that would appear to be a non sequitur.
>>A 'turbo' is a power
>> improvement over a standard glider ... it's a big
>>step down in power
>> (and price) from a standard engine.
>>
>> -- Bruce
>
>

[BTIZ]

mmmm... I thought the 808 came with a power option... maybe I'm thinking of
the 800A.. and a turbo.. would be a step up from non turbo

BT

"Bruce Hoult" > wrote in message
...
> In article <Ldyuc.3832$lL1.2063@fed1read03>,
> "BTIZ" > wrote:
>
> > "Paul" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Looks like DG have succumbed to market forces by annoucing they
> > > will produce a "Turbo" version of the 808. See
> > > http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/dg-808st-e.html Also has the 600kg all
> > > up weight. Nice.
> >
> > the standard engines get a little anemic out here in the western high
> > desert.. (US)
>
> Uhhh ... that would appear to be a non sequitur. A "turbo" is a power
> improvement over a standard glider ... it's a big step down in power
> (and price) from a standard engine.
>
> -- Bruce

[Mark Navarre]

>Uhhh ... that would appear to be a non sequitur. A "turbo" is a power
>improvement over a standard glider ... it's a big step down in power
>(and price) from a standard engine.

Kind of like how Chevy used to call the lowest trim level on their truck line
the "Custom Deluxe" so it didn't sound like the bare bones plain jane that it
was.
The "Turbo" nickname gives a warm fuzzy to those who didn't step all the way
up to a self-launcher.
The whole concept is ironic: You are already low, and now you have to DIVE to
get your engine to start and hopefully get you home.
Sure wish I had a self-launcher (self-starter)!

-
Mark Navarre
2/5 black ace
LoCal, USA
remove brain to reply
-

[Gary Evans]

With either a self launcher or turbo if you have waited
until you were low to start the engine you have made
at least two bad mistakes.



At 13:54 31 May 2004, Mark Navarre wrote:
>>Uhhh ... that would appear to be a non sequitur. A
>>'turbo' is a power
>>improvement over a standard glider ... it's a big step
>>down in power
>>(and price) from a standard engine.
>
>Kind of like how Chevy used to call the lowest trim
>level on their truck line
>the 'Custom Deluxe' so it didn't sound like the bare
>bones plain jane that it
>was.
> The 'Turbo' nickname gives a warm fuzzy to those who
>didn't step all the way
>up to a self-launcher.
>The whole concept is ironic: You are already low,
>and now you have to DIVE to
>get your engine to start and hopefully get you home.
>Sure wish I had a self-launcher (self-starter)!
>
>-
>Mark Navarre
>2/5 black ace
>LoCal, USA
>remove brain to reply
>-
>

[BTIZ]

to those of us converts from powered aircraft.. a turbo would signify more
power.. not less.. a turbo charger ramming more intake air into the
manifold.. thus creating more power at high density altitudes...

But I checked DG's web to see what all the fuss is about..

BT

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:Ldyuc.3832$lL1.2063@fed1read03...
> the standard engines get a little anemic out here in the western high
> desert.. (US)
>
> BT
>
> "Paul" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Looks like DG have succumbed to market forces by annoucing they will
> produce
> > a "Turbo" version of the 808. See
> > http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/dg-808st-e.html Also has the 600kg all up
> > weight. Nice.
> >
> >
>
>

[Doug Hoffman]

Right. Although the usage of the term seems valid in this sustainer
application as well. I'm not sure how the term is viewed in Germany, but
here in the US it has been abused in many ways (that is, used to describe a
product that has absolutely nothing to do with a turbine. Turbo Tax,
anyone?). Sometimes I think that if I had a cat that I wanted to sell I
would call it a "turbo cat". ;-)

-Doug



BTIZ wrote:

> to those of us converts from powered aircraft.. a turbo would signify more
> power.. not less.. a turbo charger ramming more intake air into the
> manifold.. thus creating more power at high density altitudes...

[Stefan]

BTIZ wrote:

> to those of us converts from powered aircraft.. a turbo would signify more
> power.. not less.. a turbo charger ramming more intake air into the
> manifold..

Yes, that's a turbo charged engine. But in sailplanes, the term "turbo"
has a different, historical developed meaning. At the time the term was
introduced, "turbo" was a synonym for "better", "extra" etc. Hence the
term "turbo" was used for sailplanes with a sustainer. That's the whole
story. Technically as wrong as it can be, but who cares.

Stefan

[Ian Johnston]

On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 08:09:33 UTC, Stefan >
wrote:

: At the time the term was
: introduced, "turbo" was a synonym for "better", "extra" etc.

Somewhere - I must get round to throwing it out - I have a PC with a
"Turbo" button which runs the 386 inside it at an amazing 16MHz (12MHz
otherwise).

Ian
--

[Bruce Hoult]

In article <cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-F8c8m9DhFJ44@localhost>,
"Ian Johnston" > wrote:

> On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 08:09:33 UTC, Stefan >
> wrote:
>
> : At the time the term was
> : introduced, "turbo" was a synonym for "better", "extra" etc.
>
> Somewhere - I must get round to throwing it out - I have a PC with a
> "Turbo" button which runs the 386 inside it at an amazing 16MHz (12MHz
> otherwise).

The original PC "turbo" buttons ran the machine at 8 MHz instead of 4.77
MHz!!

[Bruce Hoult]

In article >,
Stefan > wrote:

> BTIZ wrote:
>
> > to those of us converts from powered aircraft.. a turbo would signify more
> > power.. not less.. a turbo charger ramming more intake air into the
> > manifold..
>
> Yes, that's a turbo charged engine. But in sailplanes, the term "turbo"
> has a different, historical developed meaning. At the time the term was
> introduced, "turbo" was a synonym for "better", "extra" etc. Hence the
> term "turbo" was used for sailplanes with a sustainer. That's the whole
> story. Technically as wrong as it can be, but who cares.

"turbo" applies perfectly well to a propellor ("turbine" in many
languages).

Given where they come from, if they were what we call "turbocharged" it
would proabbly say "Kompressor".

-- Bruce

[Ian Johnston]

On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 10:04:14 UTC, Bruce Hoult > wrote:

: In article <cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-F8c8m9DhFJ44@localhost>,
: "Ian Johnston" > wrote:

: > Somewhere - I must get round to throwing it out - I have a PC with a
: > "Turbo" button which runs the 386 inside it at an amazing 16MHz (12MHz
: > otherwise).
:
: The original PC "turbo" buttons ran the machine at 8 MHz instead of 4.77
: MHz!!

Whoops. Looks like I may not have quite such a star performer as I
thought...

Ian

--

[Stefan]

Bruce Hoult wrote:

> Given where they come from, if they were what we call "turbocharged" it
> would proabbly say "Kompressor".

No. In German, Kompressor is used for a mechanically driven charger,
turbo for the exhaust driven charger.

Stefan

[Bert Willing]

Errr, no. There is even a famous upperclass car manufacturer who uses the
word "Kompressor" for turbo-charged engines.

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


"Stefan" > a écrit dans le message de
...
> Bruce Hoult wrote:
>
> > Given where they come from, if they were what we call "turbocharged" it
> > would proabbly say "Kompressor".
>
> No. In German, Kompressor is used for a mechanically driven charger,
> turbo for the exhaust driven charger.
>
> Stefan
>

[Stefan]

Bert Willing wrote:

> Errr, no. There is even a famous upperclass car manufacturer who uses the
> word "Kompressor" for turbo-charged engines.

Well, to be as correct as I can be:

"Kompressor" is the German word for, you guessed it, a compressor. So to
call a turbo charged engine a Kompressor charged one is, strictly
technically spoken, correct.

Historically, though, the first cars with charged engines had
mechanically driven compressors (driven by the crankshaft). They were
called Kompressor engines.

Then came the charged engines where the compressor was driven by the
exhaust stream. They were called turbo charged engines, just to
distinguish. Technically spoken, the "cold" side of the turbo charger is
a compressor, too, of course. I should be surprised if any marketing
guiy understands this.

Oh, and then came the sailplanes with a sustainer. They are called turbo
sailplanes, to distinguish them from self launchers. It's a crazy world
out there.

Stefan

[Bert Willing]

Well, the exact technical term in German is "Verdichter" (which is also how
the compressor stages in a turbojet engine are called).
But that doesn't sound very sexy to the marketing guys, and the sailplane
"turbo" has a another context as already mentioned...

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


"Stefan" > a écrit dans le message de
...
> Bert Willing wrote:
>
> > Errr, no. There is even a famous upperclass car manufacturer who uses
the
> > word "Kompressor" for turbo-charged engines.
>
> Well, to be as correct as I can be:
>
> "Kompressor" is the German word for, you guessed it, a compressor. So to
> call a turbo charged engine a Kompressor charged one is, strictly
> technically spoken, correct.
>
> Historically, though, the first cars with charged engines had
> mechanically driven compressors (driven by the crankshaft). They were
> called Kompressor engines.
>
> Then came the charged engines where the compressor was driven by the
> exhaust stream. They were called turbo charged engines, just to
> distinguish. Technically spoken, the "cold" side of the turbo charger is
> a compressor, too, of course. I should be surprised if any marketing
> guiy understands this.
>
> Oh, and then came the sailplanes with a sustainer. They are called turbo
> sailplanes, to distinguish them from self launchers. It's a crazy world
> out there.
>
> Stefan
>

[Shawn Curry]

Stefan wrote:
> Bert Willing wrote:
>
>> Errr, no. There is even a famous upperclass car manufacturer who uses the
>> word "Kompressor" for turbo-charged engines.
>
>
> Well, to be as correct as I can be:
>
> "Kompressor" is the German word for, you guessed it, a compressor. So to
> call a turbo charged engine a Kompressor charged one is, strictly
> technically spoken, correct.
>
> Historically, though, the first cars with charged engines had
> mechanically driven compressors (driven by the crankshaft). They were
> called Kompressor engines.

In the US, a belt driven compressor is called a "supercharger". In drag
racing its called a "blower", the engine is refered to as a "blown"
engine, cause that's what you end up with. ;-)

> Then came the charged engines where the compressor was driven by the
> exhaust stream. They were called turbo charged engines, just to
> distinguish. Technically spoken, the "cold" side of the turbo charger is
> a compressor, too, of course. I should be surprised if any marketing
> guiy understands this.

turbocharged here too.

> Oh, and then came the sailplanes with a sustainer. They are called turbo
> sailplanes, to distinguish them from self launchers. It's a crazy world
> out there.

They may call them turbo, but they sound like sewing machines to me. :-)

Shawn

[Martin Gregorie]

On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 22:04:14 +1200, Bruce Hoult >
wrote:

>In article <cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-F8c8m9DhFJ44@localhost>,
> "Ian Johnston" > wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 08:09:33 UTC, Stefan >
>> wrote:
>>
>> : At the time the term was
>> : introduced, "turbo" was a synonym for "better", "extra" etc.
>>
>> Somewhere - I must get round to throwing it out - I have a PC with a
>> "Turbo" button which runs the 386 inside it at an amazing 16MHz (12MHz
>> otherwise).
>
>The original PC "turbo" buttons ran the machine at 8 MHz instead of 4.77
>MHz!!

......but not long after that Zenith really extracted the urine from
the whole turbo marketing concept by selling the "Zenith Turbo Sport
386e" laptop computer.
--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :

[John Galloway]

Sorry Bert but Mercedes 'Kompressor' engines have mechanically
driven superchargers not turbochargers.

John Galloway

At 12:42 01 June 2004, Bert Willing wrote:
>Errr, no. There is even a famous upperclass car manufacturer
>who uses the
>word 'Kompressor' for turbo-charged engines.
>
>--
>Bert Willing
>
>ASW20 'TW'
>
>
>'Stefan' a écrit dans le message de
...
>> Bruce Hoult wrote:
>>
>> > Given where they come from, if they were what we
>>>call 'turbocharged' it
>> > would proabbly say 'Kompressor'.
>>
>> No. In German, Kompressor is used for a mechanically
>>driven charger,
>> turbo for the exhaust driven charger.
>>
>> Stefan
>>
>
>
>

[Jim Phoenix]

....and then, of course, we have the Lycoming TSIO-540; with the TS
meaning "TurboSupercharged" according to the technical manual.

Sorry, couldn't resist adding to the confusion.

Jim
SGS 1-26A with Cummins Turbo Diesel - but not necessarily in that
order going down the road. ;-)


Shawn Curry > wrote
>
> In the US, a belt driven compressor is called a "supercharger". In drag
> racing its called a "blower", the engine is refered to as a "blown"
> engine, cause that's what you end up with. ;-)
>

[tango4]

Hi Jim

Strictly speaking a turbocharger is a supercharger since they are both
forced induction systems. As you know the difference is that the turbo' is
driven by the exhaust gasses. It is now generally accepted that
superchargers are the mechanically driven variant and turbochargers are the
gas driven ones.

Probably when the 540 was built ( around the time of Noah and the Ark AIUI )
'TurboSupercharger' was actually the accepted term.

Ian
( normally aspirated 2-stroke Nimbus 3 )

:-)


"Jim Phoenix" > wrote in message
om...
> ...and then, of course, we have the Lycoming TSIO-540; with the TS
> meaning "TurboSupercharged" according to the technical manual.
>
> Sorry, couldn't resist adding to the confusion.
>
> Jim
> SGS 1-26A with Cummins Turbo Diesel - but not necessarily in that
> order going down the road. ;-)
>
>
> Shawn Curry > wrote
> >
> > In the US, a belt driven compressor is called a "supercharger". In drag
> > racing its called a "blower", the engine is refered to as a "blown"
> > engine, cause that's what you end up with. ;-)
> >

[CV]

Stefan wrote:
> Bert Willing wrote:
>
>> Errr, no. There is even a famous upperclass car manufacturer who uses the
>> word "Kompressor" for turbo-charged engines.

NOT (QUITE) CORRECT, see below.

> Well, to be as correct as I can be:
>
> "Kompressor" is the German word for, you guessed it, a compressor. So to
> call a turbo charged engine a Kompressor charged one is, strictly
> technically spoken, correct.

Yes, and what's more, to call it turbo-charged, when the compressor
is not turbine driven, is incorrect.

> Historically, though, the first cars with charged engines had
> mechanically driven compressors (driven by the crankshaft). They were
> called Kompressor engines.

That is exactly the case of the "famous upperclass car manufacturer"
in question. I happen to have one of these as a matter of fact. Their
compressor is mechanically-, not turbine driven. Hence "compressor
charged" would be correct, while "turbo charged" is not.

CV

[Walter Kronester]

The first popular sustainer engines back in the 70 or 80 of
last century had direct driven small props with
many blades, running at high RPM.
They looked more like turbines than like
conventional props. This is why they were called 'turbos'.
Somehow this name has survived up to date.
--
Best regards
Walter