Why turbo normalizer?

[Robert M. Gary]

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

[Michael Nouak]

I always thought that "turbo-normalized" is just another way of saying
"turbo-charged?" I. e. that they're both the same?


--
Michael Nouak
remove "nospamfor" to reply:


"Robert M. Gary" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
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 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
>

[Jose]

> 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.

[Peter Duniho]

"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

[Peter Duniho]

"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

[Michael Nouak]

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
>

[Dave S]

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

[Peter Duniho]

"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.

[Dave S]

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

[Matt Barrow]

"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

[Matt Barrow]

"Dave S" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
>
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
> Am I missing something?
> >
> > -Robert
>
> 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.

A popular engine mod for the Beech B36TC is to swap the TSIO-520-B for a
TNIO-550.

Better performance and TBO goes from 1600 to 1700 hrs.

[Robert M. Gary]

I"m still confused...
1) Why not just put a regular turbo on and agree to not over boost it?
2) If compression increases inside cylinder pressure about 8 times
wouldn't taking MP up to 30" cause a MUCH higher inside cylinder
pressure than 20" (its a mutiple scale). If the outside of the cylinder
is 20" its going to have a significantly higher difference in pressure
than running out the outside 20" in MP. I just don't see how a cylinder
could crack and stress relative to 30" when its only 20" outside. Isn't
the cabin of the space shuttle under more stress when in space than
when sitting on the ground at sea lever?

-Robert

[Jose]

> 1) Why not just put a regular turbo on and agree to not over boost it?

That's what a turbo normalizer is - except that the agreement is made
with the Grand Canonical Ensemble, which enforces the agreement for you.

> If the outside of the cylinder is 20" [pressure]

I don't think the outside pressure matters. Unlike with (say) the cabin
of a jetliner, the outside pressure is =not= helping to hold the engine
together. The strength and thickness of the material is. There could
be a vacuum outside and it wouldn't matter. (well except to the extent
that there's no oxygen in a vacuum :)

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter Duniho]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> I"m still confused...
> 1) Why not just put a regular turbo on and agree to not over boost it?

Why do you think that's not what they do?

In fact, my airplane was originally sold with "turbo-normalization". After
the type was certified, the manufacturer went back and tested at higher
horsepower, allowing for recertification at 20 hp higher. All they changed
was an adjustment on the turbo controller. The planes built prior were all
retroactively given the benefit of this change. I still have "250" stitched
into the interior, even though the airplane is 270hp (and says so in big
letters on the engine cowl :) ).

Turbo-normalization is JUST LIKE regular turbo-charging, except that the
maximum induction pressure is limited to 30".

> 2) If compression increases inside cylinder pressure about 8 times
> wouldn't taking MP up to 30" cause a MUCH higher inside cylinder
> pressure than 20" (its a mutiple scale). If the outside of the cylinder
> is 20" its going to have a significantly higher difference in pressure
> than running out the outside 20" in MP.

Well, first of all, the difference between even 240" and either 20" or 30"
ambient is hardly significant (220" vs 210"). I don't understand why you
are comparing 30" times 8 with 20" times 8, while at the same time arguing
that the pressure differential between the inside and outside of the
cylinder is important (it's not).

As Dave explained quite well, differential pressure isn't relevant. It's
like worrying about your soda can exploding at altitude. The can is capable
of dealing with far greater pressures than it might experience, and the
difference between 15 psi (sea level) and even 0 psi is insignificant
compared to the pressures the can is designed to tolerate. A 15 psi change
in that case just doesn't mean anything, nor would a 10" or even 30"
difference matter for an airplane engine (or any engine, for that matter).

What does matter are all of the load-bearing components in the engine, but
that load is determined not by the difference between internal and external
cylinder pressure, but rather simply by how much horsepower the engine is
making.

> I just don't see how a cylinder
> could crack and stress relative to 30" when its only 20" outside.

Who says it could? No one here has, and prior to the above statement, you
haven't even implied anyone else has.

> Isn't
> the cabin of the space shuttle under more stress when in space than
> when sitting on the ground at sea lever?

What's that got to do with the price of tea in China?

Pete

[Dave S]

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> I"m still confused...
> 1) Why not just put a regular turbo on and agree to not over boost it?

It IS a regular turbo. There is a device attached called a wastegate to
limit the boost. A turbonormalized application has a wastegate that is
set to limit pressure to what would be found at sea level on a standard
day.. approx 30 inches. Some are automatic, some are manual and some are
fixed. Deakin's colums explain this. They have pictures too.

> 2) If compression increases inside cylinder pressure about 8 times
> wouldn't taking MP up to 30" cause a MUCH higher inside cylinder
> pressure than 20" (its a mutiple scale). If the outside of the cylinder
> is 20" its going to have a significantly higher difference in pressure
> than running out the outside 20" in MP. I just don't see how a cylinder
> could crack and stress relative to 30" when its only 20" outside. Isn't
> the cabin of the space shuttle under more stress when in space than
> when sitting on the ground at sea lever?

Throw this line of thinking out the window... its not doing you any
good. The forces inside the cylinder are the same for a given power
setting. If you are making 200 hp, the forces are ESSENTIALLY the same
at sea level as they are at 20,000 feet with turbo-normalization. Yea,
you went from 30 inches ambient to somewhere in the mid-teens (like 15"
ambient)... but when you look at the pressures the cylinders endure on a
POWER stroke (not a compression stroke, like you are describing, the
pressure difference is miniscule.

The Shuttle analogy is a poor one. Fatigue is the result of pressure
cycles. Launching an orbiter into space, then orbiting for a week, and
then landing is ONE cycle. I want to say they run around 10 PSI or so,
not the 15 PSI ambient that we experience here at sea level. A four
stroke engine undergoes one cycle per two rev's (a compression and power
stroke.. im "ignoring" the intake and exhaust strokes for this
argument). At 2000 rpm, that engine cylinder has just exceeded the
entire shuttle program's accumulated cabin pressure cycles in a FEW
SECONDS. And the pressure differential is MUCH greater (exponentially
so, in fact), especially on the power stroke, immediately after combustion.

Looking at the graph ( http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182084-1.html )
on Deakins article that I mentioned shows that simple compression
without ignition (compression stroke without spark/burning) causes the
combustion chamber pressure to approach 350 PSI. Ordinary, properly
timed combustion results in a combustion chamber pressure of close to
800 PSI. A detonation event in the combustion chamber event can push
this pressure to over 1000 PSI. Now.. compare those pressures.. 350...
800.. 1000... to what the atmospheric pressure is at sea level (30"/15
psi) and in the low flight levels (15" or so/7.5 psi or so) and you see
how little a difference 7 or 8 or 9 inches really is.. and that 800 psi
is where your POWER generation is.. 800 psi is 800 psi is 800 psi. It
doesnt really matter (in a statistically significant kind of way) what
altitude you are at when you generate it.

Which brings us back to where the problems with turbocharged
installations lie: The crankshafts, the bearings, the turbo itself
sometimes, the lubrication breaks down due to high heat in the turbo,
the engine makes more power than can be adequately air-cooled and you
scorch a cylinder or two..etc... If you dont exceed the rated power of
the original engine, but only use the turbo to GET that rated power at
altitudes you couldn't before... you are getting the best of both worlds
- power AND some semblance of reliability as compared to the normally
aspirated version of that engine. BTW, The earlier limitations/
disclaimers I mentioned about cooling air mass still apply at altitude.

Dave S

[Robert M. Gary]

If differential pressure it now what wears out cylinders in turbo
engines are you implying that its over boosting? 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.

[Mike Rapoport]

The difference in engine life is that the turbonormalized engine is
producing more average power over its lifespan. The only time that a
normally aspirated engine pruduces rated power is on takeoff at sea level, a
rare occurance. The turbonormalized engine produces full power a lot of the
time and at higher altitudes where the engine doesn't cool as well.
Additionally the turbonormalized engine will run hotter since the inlet air
is always going to be hotter (even with an intercooler)..

Mike
MU-2



"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> If differential pressure it now what wears out cylinders in turbo
> engines are you implying that its over boosting? 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.
>

[Big John]

I owned a 1962 Mooney with a manual Ray-Jay turbo retrofitted.

Live in Houston (sea level) and just used the normal engine 29-30
inches for take off here.

Also had built in Oxy (retrofitted) and at altitude I could crank in
the Turbo and get sea level cruise power or the 29"-30" take off power
between 15K and 20K (forget just where turbo started to give out).

When I went to Denver I would put in full throttle (23-24 inches as I
recall) and then cranked in the tubo until I had the 29-30 inches
(availabel at sea level) and got full horse power for take off and
climb.

Never pulled over 29-30 inches max so engine went to TBO without any
problem.

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ```````````````````````````````

On 14 May 2005 14:25:57 -0700, "Robert M. Gary" >
wrote:

>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

[Peter Duniho]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.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]

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
oups.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
>

[Mike Rapoport]

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
oups.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
>>
>

[Matt Whiting]

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

[Robert M. Gary]

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

[Robert M. Gary]

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

[Peter Duniho]

"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

[Big John]

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 :o)

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
oups.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
>>>
>>
>

[Peter Duniho]

"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

[Morgans]

"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

[Morgans]

"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

[Morgans]

"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

[Robert M. Gary]

Ok, so the turbo norm kits include a cooling system better than the
system used on regular turbos. I did not know that.

[Robert M. Gary]

"Why Choose a Turbo-Normalizer
Instead of a Turbo-Booster?"

http://www.m-20turbos.com/choose.htm

[Jose]

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

I don't think anybody ever said that. They said that a turbo (of any
sort) increases wear, at the very least due to lowered cooling ability.
A turbo normalizer doesn't let you do more than rated power. A turbo
supercharger does. This makes more more wear.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mike Rapoport]

"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
>

I would disagree, there are a lot of reasons to buy a turbo (nomalizer or
otherwise). To fly higher, fly faster, climb much faster, takeoff shorter
(much shorter at high DA).

Mike
MU-2

[Mike Rapoport]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "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
>

Yes the MP is the same but the CHTs will be much higher. Basically you are
trading better performance for higher temps. Turbo Lances can't make 75%
power above 16,000 on warm days without CHTs well over 400F. It really
isn't possible to produce a lot of power at high altitude without higher
temps. I think that Robert's point is that there is a tradeoff.

Mike
MU-2

[Morgans]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote

> I think that Robert's point is that there is a tradeoff.

No, Robert's point is that your engine will melt into a molten puddle, in
very short order, if you use a turbo of any kind.
--
Jim in NC

[Newps]

> "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.

A turbo norm system simply replaces the power the engine would normally
make at sea level. A regular turbo system attempts to get more power
out of a smaller engine. The larger turbo normalized engine will last
longer because it isn't working as hard. It will cost less in the long
run to operate and be more reliable.

[Mike Rapoport]

Hot is relative. It will certainly run *hotter*. Yes I have seen the
engine in a Turbo Lance (540S1AD) run hot at 19,000' at fairly low. An
intercooler helps but it will still run hotter. One of the surprises with
my Helio (GO480) is how low the CHT run (never seen over 375F) even though
the rated HP per cu in is higher than the Turbo Lance. I hadn't flown a
normaly aspirated piston except in primary training, so I just assumed that
400F was normal.

Flying the MU-2 is as easy as flying anything else once you learn how. You
just fly it by the numbers and everything will be OK. A lot of guys can't
seem to do that and the training centers used to sign them off (they stopped
when they lost a few lawsuits). The guys flying Barons that think that
3000' of runway is too short, or think that a Mooney is "slippery" have no
business flying a MU-2 or any high performane airplane for that matter. It
has to be flown like a swept wing jet. I haven't flown a great number of
different airplanes so perhaps it is harder than average, I don't know. I
may get rid of it soon because I just don't use it very much anymore. I
hate to sell it because I feel totally secure and comfortable in it in all
weather (most of my flying is IMC, over the mountains, in icing, often at
night with very high winds. It is a perfect airplane for that kind of
flying. The unfortunate reality is that now that I am only flying it
~125hrs/yr it is *costing* me a lot of *time* as well as money. The four
day trip for recurrent training is only spread over 125total flight hrs and
20 of those hours are just to get to training and another 10 or so are to
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.

I can see Roberts point about engine life being potentially reduced but I
think that you are also getting a lot of advantages with turbocharging.

Mike
MU-2

"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> 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 :o)
>
> 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
oups.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
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

[Mike Rapoport]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> 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 :) ).
>

Actually a constant speed prop converts HP into thrust about the same at all
(reasonable) altitudes. That is one of the great advantages of a CS prop.

Mike
MU-2

[Newps]

Mike Rapoport wrote:


>
>
> I would disagree, there are a lot of reasons to buy a turbo (nomalizer or
> otherwise). To fly higher, fly faster, climb much faster, takeoff shorter
> (much shorter at high DA).

You also have to look at your options. I will be putting the Pponk
engine into my 182 next fall. It is 275 HP. My airplane will
outperform the Turbo 182's until the density altitude reduces my 275 HP
to less than the 230 HP of the turbo engine. And since I am buying it
for takeoff and climb performance and not cruise speed I will always
outperform the turbo because my typical mountain flying mission always
allows me to have more than 230 HP available. The breakeven point is
84% power.

[Peter Duniho]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> "Why Choose a Turbo-Normalizer
> Instead of a Turbo-Booster?"
>
> http://www.m-20turbos.com/choose.htm

With which statement on that page do you take issue?

Note that they are talking about using inter-cooling and "after-cooling"
(not sure what that is). For sure, inter-cooling can do a lot to address
the issue of higher operating temperatures, by counter-acting the
temperature rise that occurs due to compression.

Regardless, unless you are trying to say that you disagree with the entire
page, providing just the link really does very little to explain to us what
it is you have trouble with. I don't see anything obviously wrong with the
statements made on the page (though I can't comment on some of them, such as
the legalities of turbo-boosting the particular installations they are
talking about for example).

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Actually a constant speed prop converts HP into thrust about the same at
> all (reasonable) altitudes. That is one of the great advantages of a CS
> prop.

Really? I just assumed that with air density lower, the prop (CS or
otherwise) had less air available to move, and thus could not produce
sea-level thrust.

I guess in that case, my longer take-off runs are solely due to the higher
true speed required. Still, that's a significant effect. I just don't want
anyone thinking that a turbocharger makes high-altitude takeoffs just like
sea-level.

Pete

[Roger]

On 18 May 2005 19:52:12 -0700, "Robert M. Gary" >
wrote:

>"Why Choose a Turbo-Normalizer
>Instead of a Turbo-Booster?"
>
>http://www.m-20turbos.com/choose.htm

Simple really.

I could add a turbo normalizer to my engine while changing little
else.

If I added a turbocharger, I'd have to put in lower compression
pistons, but depending on the STC could get more HP.

IOW, you can basically add the turbonormalizer to almost any engine,
but you can't do that with a turbocharger. If you limit the boost of
the turbocharger you have just turned it into a turbonormalizer.


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Corky Scott]

On Wed, 18 May 2005 17:33:58 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>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.

There was a website devoted to the wear of Lycoming valve guides that
went into design and development of Lycoming engines, and also what
they think is the actual problem causing the premature wear in certain
models of Lycomings.

You probably can find it by Googling "lycoming valve guide wear".

To synopsize, the mechanics who took it upon themselves to research
the problem feel that it is Lycoming's use of a particular type of cam
follower or lifter, that has created the situation (of accelerated
valve guide wear).

Lycoming patterned their original lifter after those used by flathead
engines. Since flathead engines have the valves in the block, not the
head, the lifter design, which was not intended to flow much oil
through it, worked fine.

But when this lifter was used in Lycoming's overhead designs, there
were problems because not much oil was getting to the valve guides and
they suffered premature wear.

Many of the fixes for those engines that suffered the most are fixes
that bring more oil to the valve guide area, according to this well
documented and extensive three or four part article.

But the conclusion of the article is that Lycoming does not have the
in-house engineers to come up with a real fix at this point.

Corky Scott

[Corky Scott]

On Thu, 19 May 2005 09:07:42 -0400, Corky Scott
> wrote:

>There was a website devoted to the wear of Lycoming valve guides that
>went into design and development of Lycoming engines, and also what
>they think is the actual problem causing the premature wear in certain
>models of Lycomings.

Here's the article I was referring to:
http://precisionengine.home.mindspring.com/engine1.htm

Corky Scott

[Matt Barrow]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message news:hyTie.4294>
> I would disagree, there are a lot of reasons to buy a turbo (nomalizer or
> otherwise). To fly higher, fly faster, climb much faster, takeoff shorter
> (much shorter at high DA).
>

In the case of the B36TC, your TBO goes up 100 hours.


Here is some data and examples (Check the brochure links at the bottom of
the page).
http://www.taturbo.com/tcppr.html

Here is the contrast from a TSIO-520 to a TNIO-550
http://www.taturbo.com/performance.html

Reference http://www.taturbo.com/houtbk.jpg


Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Matt Barrow]

"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.

(Where are you getting this information from?)

>

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.


Matt (TN Beech B36)
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Matt Barrow]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> >
> > 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
> >
>
> Yes the MP is the same but the CHTs will be much higher. Basically you
are
> trading better performance for higher temps. Turbo Lances can't make 75%
> power above 16,000 on warm days without CHTs well over 400F. It really
> isn't possible to produce a lot of power at high altitude without higher
> temps. I think that Robert's point is that there is a tradeoff.

Well, it's wrong. My CHT's are virtually the same (370-380) at 8000 as they
are at 16K.

Heat come from your mixture, and at higher altitude, there is less drag to
be overcome.

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Matt Barrow]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > 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 :) ).
> >
>
> Actually a constant speed prop converts HP into thrust about the same at
all
> (reasonable) altitudes. That is one of the great advantages of a CS prop.
>
Some of them.

In the Bonanza conversions, you would need a new prop or else your engine is
placarded to limit MP.


Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Matt Barrow]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 19 May 2005 09:07:42 -0400, Corky Scott
> > wrote:
>
> >There was a website devoted to the wear of Lycoming valve guides that
> >went into design and development of Lycoming engines, and also what
> >they think is the actual problem causing the premature wear in certain
> >models of Lycomings.
>
> Here's the article I was referring to:
> http://precisionengine.home.mindspring.com/engine1.htm
>
> Corky Scott
Also...

(Fried Valves) http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182155-1.html


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Mike Rapoport]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> >
>> > 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
>> >
>>
>> Yes the MP is the same but the CHTs will be much higher. Basically you
> are
>> trading better performance for higher temps. Turbo Lances can't make 75%
>> power above 16,000 on warm days without CHTs well over 400F. It really
>> isn't possible to produce a lot of power at high altitude without higher
>> temps. I think that Robert's point is that there is a tradeoff.
>
> Well, it's wrong. My CHT's are virtually the same (370-380) at 8000 as
> they
> are at 16K.
>
> Heat come from your mixture, and at higher altitude, there is less drag to
> be overcome.
>
> --
> Matt
> ---------------------
> Matthew W. Barrow
> Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
> Montrose, CO
>

All things being equal the temperatures will be higher at higher altitudes.
It is a simple fact that less dense air does not cool as well. I'm not sure
what you are trying to say about less drag unless it is to point out the TAS
advantage of higher altitudes.

Mike
MU-2

>

[Mike Rapoport]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>> Actually a constant speed prop converts HP into thrust about the same at
>> all (reasonable) altitudes. That is one of the great advantages of a CS
>> prop.
>
> Really? I just assumed that with air density lower, the prop (CS or
> otherwise) had less air available to move, and thus could not produce
> sea-level thrust.
>
> I guess in that case, my longer take-off runs are solely due to the higher
> true speed required. Still, that's a significant effect. I just don't
> want anyone thinking that a turbocharger makes high-altitude takeoffs just
> like sea-level.
>
> Pete

The CS prop simply changes its angle of attack in response to the lower
density..

Mike
MU-2

[Mike Rapoport]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "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.
>
> (Where are you getting this information from?)
>
>>
>
> 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.
>
>
> Matt (TN Beech B36)
> ---------------------
> Matthew W. Barrow
> Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
> Montrose, CO
>
>

The lower ambient temperatures don't compensate for the decreased mass flow.
Temperatures rise with altitude. It is a big issue for the preasurized
piston planes flying over FL250.

Mike
MU-2

[Mike Rapoport]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Mike Rapoport wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>> I would disagree, there are a lot of reasons to buy a turbo (nomalizer or
>> otherwise). To fly higher, fly faster, climb much faster, takeoff
>> shorter (much shorter at high DA).
>
> You also have to look at your options. I will be putting the Pponk engine
> into my 182 next fall. It is 275 HP. My airplane will outperform the
> Turbo 182's until the density altitude reduces my 275 HP to less than the
> 230 HP of the turbo engine. And since I am buying it for takeoff and
> climb performance and not cruise speed I will always outperform the turbo
> because my typical mountain flying mission always allows me to have more
> than 230 HP available. The breakeven point is 84% power.

Agreed. The ultimate for the Helio is the 450hp Allison engine. Although
it is a turbine and therefore loses power with altitude like a normally
aspirated piston, it still have more power than a turbo normalized recip and
is significantly lighter as well.

I am somewhat surprised that you always have 84% power availible for takeoff
in the mountains.


Mike
MU-2

[Newps]

Mike Rapoport wrote:

>
> I am somewhat surprised that you always have 84% power availible for takeoff
> in the mountains.

I don't of course. That's the breakeven point with the turbo.

[Matt Barrow]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "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.
> >
> > (Where are you getting this information from?)
> >
> >>
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > Matt (TN Beech B36)
> > ---------------------
> > Matthew W. Barrow
> > Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
> > Montrose, CO
> >
> >
>
> The lower ambient temperatures don't compensate for the decreased mass
flow.
> Temperatures rise with altitude. It is a big issue for the preasurized
> piston planes flying over FL250.
>
So which would provide better cooling: 8000 feet and 80 degrees, or 16000
and -20?

[Matt Barrow]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> >>
> >> >
> >> > 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
> >> >
> >>
> >> Yes the MP is the same but the CHTs will be much higher. Basically you
> > are
> >> trading better performance for higher temps. Turbo Lances can't make
75%
> >> power above 16,000 on warm days without CHTs well over 400F. It really
> >> isn't possible to produce a lot of power at high altitude without
higher
> >> temps. I think that Robert's point is that there is a tradeoff.
> >
> > Well, it's wrong. My CHT's are virtually the same (370-380) at 8000 as
> > they
> > are at 16K.
> >
> > Heat come from your mixture, and at higher altitude, there is less drag
to
> > be overcome.
> >
> > --
> > Matt
> > ---------------------
> > Matthew W. Barrow
> > Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
> > Montrose, CO
> >
>
> All things being equal the temperatures will be higher at higher
altitudes.
> It is a simple fact that less dense air does not cool as well.

Is there a mathematical comparison for lower temp/air density versus higher
temp/density?

> I'm not sure
> what you are trying to say about less drag unless it is to point out the
TAS
> advantage of higher altitudes.

I was responding to the need to produce higher power versus at lower
altitude for a given speed. Properly leaned, I can get roughly the same TAS
and CHT temps at higher altitude than lower IF PROPERLY LEANED. Note the
graphs in Deakins' articles on AvWeb.

[Dylan Smith]

In article t>, 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"

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Morgans wrote:
> Not true, if the engine is cooled with adequite airflow.

And possibly a better cooling system.

I like flying a friend's Europa. It is turboccharged (i.e. turbo
supercharged, not turbo normalized), and has thermostatically controlled
liquid cooling, and automatic turbo control. Additionally, the constant
speed prop is set by putting the selector in 'Take off', 'Climb',
'Cruise' (you can also switch it into a simple variable pitch prop, or
make it constantly variable, or feather it).

Cruise is simply a matter of putting the prop switch into the 'Cruise'
detent and setting the MP at your desired power setting. Mixture control
is automatic, too. That's the way to fly.

I've never seen that engine run particularly hot.

--
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"

[Mike Rapoport]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "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.
>> >
>> > (Where are you getting this information from?)
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> > 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.
>> >
>> >
>> > Matt (TN Beech B36)
>> > ---------------------
>> > Matthew W. Barrow
>> > Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
>> > Montrose, CO
>> >
>> >
>>
>> The lower ambient temperatures don't compensate for the decreased mass
> flow.
>> Temperatures rise with altitude. It is a big issue for the preasurized
>> piston planes flying over FL250.
>>
> So which would provide better cooling: 8000 feet and 80 degrees, or 16000
> and -20?
>
What is the point supposed to be? It is never going to drop 100F in 8000'.

After fixing your numbers, the engine will run cooler at 8,000 and 100F than
at 16,000' 60F.

Mike
MU-2

[Mike Rapoport]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article t>, 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

[Matt Barrow]

"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_climbcruise_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