Received-SPF: softfail
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.102.122.148; envelope-from=echristley@nc.rr.com
Message-ID: <4767F5EF.5090502@nc.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 11:31:43 -0500
From: Ernest Christley <echristley@nc.rr.com>
Reply-To: echristley@nc.rr.com
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.14pre (X11/20071023)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Supercharging
References: <list-2603539@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-2603539@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

wrjjrs@aol.com wrote:
> Greg,
> Superchargers are sometimes simpler to implement, but there are other 
> reasons they aren't as popular on aircraft. First they are a power 
> robbing device. There is a net gain in power of course, but the 
> charger can require 10-15 HP to drive it at WOT and it makes the 
> engine less efficient. The other problem is you must be sure the unit 
> is up to continous use in the boost RPM range. Lastly the mount must 
> be solid enough to hold up to continous use as well.
> Bill Jepson 
Doesn't the same apply to all intake charging devices?