X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from imo-m28.mx.aol.com ([64.12.137.9] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2c1) with ESMTP id 2603835 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 13:09:20 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.137.9; envelope-from=BMears9413@aol.com Received: from BMears9413@aol.com by imo-m28.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r9.3.) id q.d63.c21aec1 (34909) for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 13:08:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from mblk-d10 (mblk-d10.mblk.aol.com [205.188.149.2]) by cia-da02.mx.aol.com (v121.4) with ESMTP id MAILCIADA026-885d47680c9927d; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 13:08:25 -0500 References: To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Supercharging Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 13:08:25 -0500 X-AOL-IP: 65.182.71.8 In-Reply-To: X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI MIME-Version: 1.0 From: bmears9413@aol.com X-MB-Message-Type: User Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8CA0FB81E3C3941_428_103C_mblk-d10.sysops.aol.com" X-Mailer: AOL Webmail 33161-STANDARD Received: from 65.182.71.8 by mblk-d10.sysops.aol.com (205.188.149.2) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Tue, 18 Dec 2007 13:08:25 -0500 Message-Id: <8CA0FB81E3C3941-428-811@mblk-d10.sysops.aol.com> X-Spam-Flag: NO ----------MB_8CA0FB81E3C3941_428_103C_mblk-d10.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" A supercharger will weigh more than a turbo charger for one thing. And just to pass along my experience...I've blown the Teflon seals out of two B&M superchargers, and we blew the gears out of a new Camden and it seized up this year. I dont think I wouldnt want one on my plane. Now one of those paxton type might be ok, but it looks like to me a turbocharger is just built for rotor motors. Bob Mears -----Original Message----- From: Ed Anderson To: Rotary motors in aircraft Sent: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 11:52 am Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Supercharging Well, I have not turbocharged a rotary, but I have heard that 300-500 HP is not unusual from one turbocharged - although I don't think I would feel comfortable with those power levels for an aircraft. While an N/A rotor does not like back pressure, when you have a turbo force feeding it you have a different story. I don't want to mislead you when I'm talking about lag and spool up you may be talking about a few 100 milliseconds - to a second or two of time. In drag racing, of course, a 10th of a milliseconds makes the difference in a win. A few 100 milliseconds would probably not affect your go-a-round chances {:>).? ? However, as I always say - if one choice makes you feel more comfortable than another then you need to pay attention to your comfort level. I know of a few choices I had made because I deemed one choice technically slightly better - but never felt as comfortable with it as I would have a slightly inferior choice.? ? Ultimately, of course, you're de fellow that has to fly behind it.? ? Ed? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Greg Ward" ? To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" ? Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 12:18 PM? Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Supercharging? ? > Thanks Ed;? > The below is one of the reasons for looking at a SC in the first place. > Specifically on a missed approach and go-around, in a ticklish spot, the > responsiveness of the SC vs. the time it takes a TC to spool up, might be > an advantage. And, as I have been hearing, back pressure (from a turbo) > kills HP in a rotary. Maybe I'm picking the nit a little hard here??? > Greg? >? > There are certainly advantages to a supercharger in some > applications - and? >> to a turbo in others. The immediate boost response of a roots type >> blower is about the only reason they are the bedrock of the top end drag >> racers. Unlike a turbo which needs some time to spool up, the roots type >> superchargers produce boost much quicker. There are several types on >> impellers designed to increase the efficiency of the root types blowers, >> but I am not aware of any that approach the centrifugal impeller in >> efficiency.? >>? >>? >> While the turbo uses the "free" exhaust flow energy, you do get back >> pressure with the turbocharger that effects (decreases) engine power so >> that has to be considered also. But, overall, its my understanding that >> the turbo is a bit more efficient and also does not decrease crankshaft >> power (at least not as much) as a supercharger. However, there may be >> other reasons (like not having to have all that heated exhaust pipes >> routing around to and from a turbocharger) as well as cost for using one >> vs the other.? >>? >> Gee, its great to be back {:>)? >>? >> my 0.02? >>? >> Ed? >>? >> --? >> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/? >> Archive and UnSub: >> http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html? >>? >? >? > --? > Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/? > Archive and UnSub: > http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html? > ? --? Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/? Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html? ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com ----------MB_8CA0FB81E3C3941_428_103C_mblk-d10.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" A supercharger will weigh more than a turbo charger for one thing. And just to pass along my experience...I've blown the Teflon seals out of two B&M superchargers, and we blew the gears out of a new Camden and it seized up this year. I dont think I wouldnt want one on my plane. Now one of those paxton type might be ok, but it looks like to me a turbocharger is just built for rotor motors.

Bob Mears

-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Anderson <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 11:52 am
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Supercharging

Well, I have not turbocharged a rotary, but I have heard that 300-500 HP is not unusual from one turbocharged - although I don't think I would feel comfortable with those power levels for an aircraft. While an N/A rotor does not like back pressure, when you have a turbo force feeding it you have a different story. I don't want to mislead you when I'm talking about lag and spool up you may be talking about a few 100 milliseconds - to a second or two of time. In drag racing, of course, a 10th of a milliseconds makes the difference in a win. A few 100 milliseconds would probably not affect your go-a-round chances {:>). 
 
However, as I always say - if one choice makes you feel more comfortable than another then you need to pay attention to your comfort level. I know of a few choices I had made because I deemed one choice technically slightly better - but never felt as comfortable with it as I would have a slightly inferior choice. 
 
Ultimately, of course, you're de fellow that has to fly behind it. 
 
Ed 
----- Original Message ----- From: "Greg Ward" <gregw@onestopdesign.biz
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 12:18 PM 
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Supercharging 
 
> Thanks Ed; 
> The below is one of the reasons for looking at a SC in the first place. > Specifically on a missed approach and go-around, in a ticklish spot, the > responsiveness of the SC vs. the time it takes a TC to spool up, might be > an advantage. And, as I have been hearing, back pressure (from a turbo) > kills HP in a rotary. Maybe I'm picking the nit a little hard here?? 
> Greg 

> <snip> There are certainly advantages to a supercharger in some > applications - and 
>> to a turbo in others. The immediate boost response of a roots type >> blower is about the only reason they are the bedrock of the top end drag >> racers. Unlike a turbo which needs some time to spool up, the roots type >> superchargers produce boost much quicker. There are several types on >> impellers designed to increase the efficiency of the root types blowers, >> but I am not aware of any that approach the centrifugal impeller in >> efficiency. 
>> 
>> 
>> While the turbo uses the "free" exhaust flow energy, you do get back >> pressure with the turbocharger that effects (decreases) engine power so >> that has to be considered also. But, overall, its my understanding that >> the turbo is a bit more efficient and also does not decrease crankshaft >> power (at least not as much) as a supercharger. However, there may be >> other reasons (like not having to have all that heated exhaust pipes >> routing around to and from a turbocharger) as well as cost for using one >> vs the other. 
>> 
>> Gee, its great to be back {:>) 
>> 
>> my 0.02 
>> 
>> Ed 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ 
>> Archive and UnSub: >> http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html 
>> 


> -- 
> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ 
> Archive and UnSub: > http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html 
>  
-- 
Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ 
Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html 

More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail!
----------MB_8CA0FB81E3C3941_428_103C_mblk-d10.sysops.aol.com--