|
Message
If you Need at turbo - like somebody in a
Mountain region might to get up over ridge lines etc, or for some other reason
then I would say stick with it. If the tubo is just a "nice to have" then
you might want to reconsider.
Hi
Ed,
It
wasn't John that couldn't decide which way to go, it was me, which
shouldn't be a big surprise :-)
I realized a
couple things today:
1- I
don't need a turbo to fly an RV-3 the way Van intended it to be
flown.
2- I do
need a turbo to fly it the way I want
it to fly.
I keep
coming back to the reality that this is a toy, and serves no practical
purpose. Ultimately, I'd like this plane to make a performance
statement. That has been my goal all along, so there's no reason to quit
now. If I wanted a normal RV-3, I'd have an O-320.
OK, that
sounded good right? Well, here's the real story. I kept
babbling to my wife about the pros and cons of turbo vs non-turbo, and she
basically told me to shut up, and get the damn turbo, since it's what I
really want. She knows that I would eventually decided to do that anyway,
so she saved me some time, or she's after the life insurance money...
Either way- smart woman :-)
In other
news- I got that ultra-mini alternator today, and man is that thing small.
It looks about a quarter of the size of the stock Mazda unit.
Also, while
at the airport today, I set my relieve valve to limit the boost to 5 psi.
At least now I can make less exciting takeoffs. Usually, I spend the first
hundred or so feet chasing the throttle around to get the boost right.
This isn't an ideal solution, but it should be interesting to see if I get
better climb performance at full throttle, and 5psi, vs when I was at about half
throttle, and 5psi. Yep, just call me Mr. experimental.
Cheers,
Rusty (Hello
Turbonetics, goodbye money)
|