Why are turbos rare?

Why do turbocharged piston props seem to be so rare/unfavored? Don't they
provide a substantial advantage over normally aspirated engines?

On 10/17/2010 2:54 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:
Why do turbocharged piston props seem to be so rare/unfavored? Don't they
provide a substantial advantage over normally aspirated engines?

More expensive to buy, more expensive to maintain, more prone to
problems. Key issues for a private buyer. For a business purchase, the
advantages are mostly ephemeral (arrive fifteen minutes earlier,
smoother ride over weather) and are hard to use to justify the
additional expense.

Ron Wanttaja

On Oct 17, 9:57*am, Ron Wanttaja wrote:
On 10/17/2010 2:54 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:

Why do turbocharged piston props seem to be so rare/unfavored? Don't they
provide a substantial advantage over normally aspirated engines?

More expensive to buy, more expensive to maintain, more prone to
problems. *Key issues for a private buyer. *For a business purchase, the
advantages are mostly ephemeral (arrive fifteen minutes earlier,
smoother ride over weather) and are hard to use to justify the
additional expense.

Ron Wanttaja

The reality is, no one has scaled a turbo down to where it might
replace an IO 360 or IO 540.

a wrote
The reality is, no one has scaled a turbo down to where it might
replace an IO 360 or IO 540.

I think that you mistake "turboCHARGED" for "turboPROP".
I have flown lots of turbocharged TSIO540s.

Bob Moore

On Oct 17, 12:11*pm, a wrote:
On Oct 17, 9:57*am, Ron Wanttaja wrote:

On 10/17/2010 2:54 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:

Why do turbocharged piston props seem to be so rare/unfavored? Don't they
provide a substantial advantage over normally aspirated engines?

More expensive to buy, more expensive to maintain, more prone to
problems. *Key issues for a private buyer. *For a business purchase, the
advantages are mostly ephemeral (arrive fifteen minutes earlier,
smoother ride over weather) and are hard to use to justify the
additional expense.

Ron Wanttaja

The reality is, no one has scaled a turbo down to where it might
replace an IO 360 or IO 540.

This was a topic of interest to me some time
back, and I ran across the Rolls Royce "RR 500"
which was developed to fill the GA turboprop market.

http://www.rolls-royce.com/civil/new...mallengine.jsp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2nD7Nqh7B4

Then there's also the "Gap FJX-2" diesel.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/about/fs01grc.html

---
Mark

On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 07:27:41 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:

This was a topic of interest to me some time
back, and I invented the Rolls Royce "RR 500"
which was developed to fill the GA turboprop market.

oooooooK

http://www.rolls-royce.com/civil/new...mallengine.jsp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2nD7Nqh7B4

Then there's also the "Gap FJX-2" diesel.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/about/fs01grc.html
I hold the patent on that one too. Back to the roof,
another day another solar panel install.
---
Mark

OOOOOOOOOOk!

a wrote:
On Oct 17, 9:57Â*am, Ron Wanttaja wrote:
On 10/17/2010 2:54 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:

Why do turbocharged piston props seem to be so rare/unfavored? Don't they
provide a substantial advantage over normally aspirated engines?

More expensive to buy, more expensive to maintain, more prone to
problems. Â*Key issues for a private buyer. Â*For a business purchase, the
advantages are mostly ephemeral (arrive fifteen minutes earlier,
smoother ride over weather) and are hard to use to justify the
additional expense.

Ron Wanttaja

The reality is, no one has scaled a turbo down to where it might
replace an IO 360 or IO 540.

There are turbine engines as small as a pound or so.

The reality is the flight profile of smaller GA aircraft is not a good fit
to how a turbine works best, i.e. sustained flight at altitude.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
On 10/17/2010 2:54 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:
Why do turbocharged piston props seem to be so rare/unfavored? Don't they
provide a substantial advantage over normally aspirated engines?

More expensive to buy, more expensive to maintain, more prone to
problems. Key issues for a private buyer. For a business purchase, the
advantages are mostly ephemeral (arrive fifteen minutes earlier,
smoother ride over weather) and are hard to use to justify the
additional expense.

Ron Wanttaja

And to actually utilize it, you need oxygen, an instrument equiped aircraft
and a current instrument rating, which is yet more expense to justify.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Oct 18, 5:55*am, wrote:

And to actually utilize it, you need oxygen, an instrument equiped aircraft
and a current instrument rating, which is yet more expense to justify.


Well -we- always have the locally built PAC Cresco for sale to
interested overseas buyers :-)

On Oct 17, 5:54*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
Why do turbocharged piston props seem to be so rare/unfavored? Don't they
provide a substantial advantage over normally aspirated engines?

Because electric airplanes are soon to
replace the fossil fueled redneck planes.

http://energysavinggadgets.net/world...ne/2009061819/

All factors of turbocharged piston props
such as detonation, wastegate management,
compressor stall, a non-negotiable critical
altitude, turbo lag from rotational inertia,
boost thresholds, and high heat oil coking
as well as the components to deal with
these aspects, run up the costs and put the
turbocharged piston planes into speciality
niches, which the fill nicely, eg., small
commercial applications.

Electric planes will replace internal combustion
airplanes. It's a "no-brainer".

---
Mark