Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: lml Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 17:42:36 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mail.indian-creek.net ([209.176.40.9] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0.2) with ESMTP id 1932530 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 21 Dec 2002 21:52:56 -0500 Received: from VAIO (sl17.du.indian-creek.net [209.176.40.33] toucan@78055.com) by mail.indian-creek.net with SMTP (IOA-IPAD 3.70a/96) id 84F5E00 for ; Sat, 21 Dec 2002 20:52:02 -0600 X-Original-Message-ID: <001601c2a965$3490c890$2128b0d1@VAIO> From: "Jim Cameron" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" Subject: Turbo'ed ES's -- ?? X-Original-Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 20:52:43 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0013_01C2A932.E8AD5DD0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.3000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C2A932.E8AD5DD0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Had a fellow inquiring about my plane today who says he wants to = turbocharge an ES. To my knowledge, the only one flying is Ed Rosiak's, = but I haven't heard how that TSIO-550 installation has worked out in the = ES. In particular, I'm wondering how the C.G. limits are kept within = the design envelope with the extra turbo weight up front. Since the ES = was designed for either the IO-360 or the -550, it tends to be = nose-heavy anyway with the normally aspirated big engine. The Lancair factory worked on a turbo-normalizing package for a = while, but dropped it before it came to market. Carsten was in charge = of that effort, I think, but I never got an explanation of why it was = dropped. Size? Weight? Cost? Complexity? All of the above? Also, = would a turbo'ed ES exceed the tested flutter envelope at, say, FL240? = The wing is not designed for IV-type flight conditions. Any comments or insight on this? Jim Cameron, Lancair ES, N143ES (w/ IO-550-N) ------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C2A932.E8AD5DD0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Had a fellow = inquiring about my=20 plane today who says he wants to turbocharge an ES. To my = knowledge, the=20 only one flying is Ed Rosiak's, but I haven't heard how that TSIO-550=20 installation has worked out in the ES. In particular, I'm = wondering how=20 the C.G. limits are kept within the design envelope with the extra turbo = weight=20 up front. Since the ES was designed for either the IO-360 or the = -550, it=20 tends to be nose-heavy anyway with the normally aspirated big=20 engine.

The Lancair factory = worked on a=20 turbo-normalizing package for a while, but dropped it before it came to=20 market. Carsten was in charge of that effort, I think, but I never = got an=20 explanation of why it was dropped. Size? Weight? Cost? = Complexity? =20 All of the above? Also, would a turbo'ed ES exceed the tested = flutter=20 envelope at, say, FL240? The wing is not designed for IV-type = flight=20 conditions.

Any comments or = insight on=20 this?

Jim Cameron,

Lancair ES, N143ES (w/=20 IO-550-N)

------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C2A932.E8AD5DD0--