Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net> (Marvin Kaye)
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 13:32:57 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-2880283@logan.com>
From: dave morss <morss@pacbell.net>
Reply-To: morss@pacbell.net
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: superchargers
References: <list-2870840@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Lately Ive been getting quite a few call on my supercharger. Every call
> starts with the same question. Whats wrong with the supercharger? First
> let me say Ive sold mine so this post is not to help my sale.I spent 11
> years flying my 320 at 175 kts getting 29 mpg. when i stepped up to the
> l2k i gained 40 knt but went down to 20 mpg. When I supercharged I
> gained another 40 kts but went down to 16 mpg. how fast do you want to
> go? I weighed all factors and because Ill throttle back to gain range, I
> often fly 6 hour non stop flights. With the supercharge about 4 is the
> max with resevers.Speed costs! how fast do you want to go. there is no
> other mod you can do and gain 40 knts in two days.Its like choosing
> between a 4 piston or turbine, pure speed or a little less speed and
> more range. the last factor was decided at reno. My MT prop was designed
> for 170 hp at 2300 rpm 12000ft. as i learned at reno more power didnt
> make me go faster I had to instal the hartzel blended airfoil  prop to
> really make use of the supercharger. so If I keep the supercharger Id
> want a new prop to gain all the advantage from the supercharger.remember
> my numbers posted on the aero supercharger web site are for the mt prop,
> a better high speed or high rpm prop you would see speeds even higher.
> dave
>