Why turbo normalizer?

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

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

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

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.

"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

"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

"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

"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.

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 )

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
legroups.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" 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

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.