Return-Path: Received: from rwcrmhc13.comcast.net ([204.127.198.39] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.4) with ESMTP id 2600975 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 23 Sep 2003 22:15:57 -0400 Received: from 204.127.197.116 ([204.127.197.116]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc13) with SMTP id <200309240215560150008k2te>; Wed, 24 Sep 2003 02:15:56 +0000 Received: from [68.51.45.250] by 204.127.197.116; Wed, 24 Sep 2003 02:15:56 +0000 From: kenpowell@comcast.net To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] today's turbo musings Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 02:15:56 +0000 X-Mailer: AT&T Message Center Version 1 (Sep 12 2003) X-Authenticated-Sender: a2VucG93ZWxsQGNvbWNhc3QubmV0 Message-ID: Rusty, just as a sanity check; the companies makeing centrifugal superchargers for the Ford Mustang go up to 5 lbs of boost without an intercooler. All of the units developing more than 5 lbs use an intercooler. Ken Powell > Howdy all, > > Well, I took a couple intercoolers to the hanger, and tried them on for > size. The FC model would probably go in the right cheek, without too much > effort, though I'm worried that I'll pressurize the back of my radiator and > oil cooler if I let too much air flow through it. What to do, what to do... > > I also did some more research on charge temps, and intercooler > effectiveness. It seems that 70F is about the best temp drop that you can > hope for with a good intercooler, at high boost. Unfortunately, size > counts, and neither the FC nor FD intercooler is what would be considered > "good". Adequate might even be a stretch, especially for the FD model. In > the scheme of things, <=70F really isn't a deal breaker, and I'm starting to > believe it falls in the category of refinement, more than necessity, when > talking about 10 psi or less of boost, particularly when the higher boost is > only used at frigid altitudes. Turbo Tom considers it a necessity, but I > have to wonder what his criteria is. If I had a car, and were limited to X > psi of boost, I would consider intercooling necessary to make the most power > possible. Since I should easily have more power than I could ever need, I > don't see the intercooler being quite as essential. > > What does this all mean. Well, I'm going to fly it like it is, and use up > to 5 psi for takeoff. At altitude, I'll go for the gusto, but will try to > limit myself to 50" MAP, or 12 psi of boost over ambient, whichever comes > first. This should make a world of difference, and I can move on to > something else. > > Cheers, > Rusty >