Steve, you are right - the turbine wheel had broken off already so I just
removed it, disconnected the oil and water lines, re-routed the intake to
avoid the compressor section, and then I went flying.  The entire
conversion took 2 hours in someone else's hangar.

But I was just doing a temporary fix until I could upgrade the turbo.  I
flew in that configuration for about 50 hrs and had very few problems
except for that my power was not up to par.  I guess I was only making
130-140 h.p. The issues were:
1)low compression rotors
2)exhaust back pressure because of the turbo manifold and turbine housing
3)poor compression in one of the rotors that I never really appreciated
until I installed a re-build.
3)intake resistance (peak MAP at WOT was just over 27") because the intake
was not optimized nor did it have a proper pressure recovery plenum.
4)Because of all that I now had too much prop, max RPM at WOT (in
flight) was about 5500, I only had 4500 for take off.  I basically put it
to full throttle on take off, and it never changed it.  Level TAS at WOT
was about 145 kts at 5K'.

I have about 40 hrs on the new turbo (TO4 in a stock turbine housing) and
it still looks pristine.  I try to keep it under 38" but have had it up to
45.


I can only cool about 28" continuously so that is a sort of normalization
if you want to look at it that way.

Dave Leonard

On 6/14/06, Steve Brooks <prvt_pilot@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Buly,
> With your engine, removing the turbo makes sense.  You can probably get
> enough
> horsepower with the NA setup.
>
> In my case, with a lower compression turbo engine, I'll have to stick
> with the
> turbo to get enough power.
>
> I have about 42 hours now on my already used stock turbo, with no
> problems.  I
> have been nursing it along though, and don't exceed 5-6 lbs of boost on
> takeoff, and usually fly at 0-2 lbs of boost max.  Sometimes I cruise
> around
> at less power than that to conserve fuel, if I'm just flying around.
>
> I do think that the stock turbo is going to fail, and I have all  of the
> parts
> to convert to a T04 turbo, which appears to be the best long term turbo
> solution.
>
> As I recall, when Dave had his turbo trouble, he gutted the turbo, and
> still
> used his same exhaust system.  Is that what you did, or did you redo your
> exhaust ?
>
> Steve Brooks
>
> On Tuesday 13 June 2006 11:21 pm, Bulent Aliev wrote:
> > On Jun 13, 2006, at 10:13 PM, John Slade wrote:
> > > Joe, Buly
> > > I think the bottom line on my "escapades" is that the stock turbo
> > > just isn't up to the task. So far I have about 25 hours on my T04
> > > Turbonetics + external wastegate setup with zero problems. The
> > > engine is purring very smoothly these days. Just a matter of using
> > > the right tools for the job.
> > > John
> >
> > Just came from the hangar. Managed to convert the engine to NA in 3
> > hours. Didn't run it since it was almost 11PM and I was missing one
> > plug for the cooling port for the turbo.
> > While doing it, I opened up John's old stock turbo that he imported
> > from NZ. Many of the turbine blades were missing chunks.
> > That convinced me that it was the right thing to do. At the moment
> > I'm not up-to spending another 2G's for a T4 turbo after I just spent
> > $2,400 for a prop. Hope I'm able to spin the prop to the static RPM
> > needed? The good part is I can convert it to a 2 blade fast :)
> > Buly
> >
> > --
> > Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
> > Archive and UnSub:   http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/
>
> --
> Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
> Archive and UnSub:   http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/