How would you add a turbonormalizer to an O-320 in EXP plane?

[weilke]

Who made the turbonormalizer setup for the Mooney M20F ?

Enstroms have a turbo, it may be another source for the pieces you need (throttle operated wastegate, turbo). But they are also fuel injected.

 

[Henning]

Who made the turbonormalizer setup for the Mooney M20F ?

Enstroms have a turbo, it may be another source for the pieces you need (throttle operated wastegate, turbo). But they are also fuel injected.

Pretty sure that was another of Jack Riley's.

 

[docmirror]

Are the FI units draw through? Never seen one, but I've got the books for the Bonanza 35TC, that should show how they did it.

 

[Tom-D]

EXP/AB ??

Cheaper easier to use a TSIO-360 / 220 horse, easier to build a mount than re-invent a intake system and get the jetting right.

 

[docmirror]

EXP/AB ??

Cheaper easier to use a TSIO-360 / 220 horse, easier to build a mount than re-invent a intake system and get the jetting right.

You have to be kidding. I'm pretty sure I can do the Henning way for the price of a turbo, some duct, oil lines, and a re-engineered collector exhaust. The carb should be very close to stock since it's only gonna normalize, and not boost. I could jet it up one and maybe get a bigger emulsion tube to go with, but even if I have to buy 20 jets, or bore them myself it can't be anywhere near the cost of a used TSIO-360. But, I would like the added HP.

 

[Tom-D]

You have to be kidding. I'm pretty sure I can do the Henning way for the price of a turbo, some duct, oil lines, and a re-engineered collector exhaust. The carb should be very close to stock since it's only gonna normalize, and not boost. I could jet it up one and maybe get a bigger emulsion tube to go with, but even if I have to buy 20 jets, or bore them myself it can't be anywhere near the cost of a used TSIO-360. But, I would like the added HP.

Good luck with the Rube Goldburg thing.

 

[docmirror]

Good luck with the Rube Goldburg thing.

Thanks, it is after-all, EXP. If it's good enough for the a couple of Beeches and the PA-39, it's good enough for me. Particularly if I go with the blow through. Lose the pressure, I still have partial power, maybe can float down, maybe not, but without it and 10k, I'm gonna be hurtin' for certain at some smaller landing places.

 

[Henning]

Are the FI units draw through? Never seen one, but I've got the books for the Bonanza 35TC, that should show how they did it.

Fuel Injection there is nothing to draw through except air. The fuel is sprayed into the intake port pointed at the valve.

 

[docmirror]

Fuel Injection there is nothing to draw through except air. The fuel is sprayed into the intake port pointed at the valve.

Throttle plate, or I guess more accurate 'air metering plate'. In most cars, it's right before the intake plenum and the turbo blows through, but some can have the metering plate before the turbo.

 

[Henning]

Throttle plate, or I guess more accurate 'air metering plate'. In most cars, it's right before the intake plenum and the turbo blows through, but some can have the metering plate before the turbo.

The metering block is post turbo in every application I've seen. Actually, have you considered rigging an TPI/EFI system to the plane?

There is one outstanding question here still and that is do you have a fixed or constant speed prop?

 

[Dan Thomas]

There is one outstanding question here still and that is do you have a fixed or constant speed prop?

He already said he has a fixed prop and doesn't want to go constant speed, and will have to be gentle with the throttle at altitude, which will negate all the turbo gains anyhow.

EXP often means pouring money down a hole.

Dan

 

[Henning]

He already said he has a fixed prop and doesn't want to go constant speed, and will have to be gentle with the throttle at altitude, which will negate all the turbo gains anyhow.

EXP often means pouring money down a hole.

Dan

Not all, but most. He could put on a steeper prop and pull a few inches of boost for T/O performance. Keep it rich no worries boosting 8.5:1 to 32" even more if he runs 100LL.

 

[docmirror]

He already said he has a fixed prop and doesn't want to go constant speed, and will have to be gentle with the throttle at altitude, which will negate all the turbo gains anyhow.

EXP often means pouring money down a hole.

Dan

Actually the only reason for it is the bootstrap effect if you just firewall it. once the wastegate kicks in, it'll go full throttle. Just don't want to have a pressure bubble or spike. I'm guessing I'll add an inch or two in pitch depending on what I find when I test it at alt.

Actually, if you read all the mtn flying books, and look at the stuff that gets used up there, just about everyone recommends turbo for safety.

 

[Dan Thomas]

Actually, if you read all the mtn flying books, and look at the stuff that gets used up there, just about everyone recommends turbo for safety.

But they also have constant-speed props. Your true airspeed rises with altitude, as drag drops, so with a fixed-pitch prop you can't take advantage of it without overspeeding the engine. I fail to see how you'll use power that can't be used without an increase in pitch. You'll just end up mushing along.

Dan

 

[docmirror]

I fail to see how you'll use power that can't be used without an increase in pitch. You'll just end up mushing along.

Dan

That's ok. I'll explain in gory detail.

Take a bone stock 172, with a 150HP engine and a bone stock fixed prop. The max static RPM at sea level is 2280(landplane) which presumes full MP. This is conforming, and as the plane takes off, the prop speeds up to redline if nothing else is done, at least if everything is working right. so, the pilot throttle back, or climbs to thinner air, or both.

Take the same plane to 10k' alt and see what the max static RPM will be at ~25.42 MP. Yes, there is less resistance on the prop blades, but I assure you the static RPM will be significantly less. Suppose there was a way to get that static RPM back up to at least 2280, and possibly even more?

Now, add just the turbonormalizer to the mix. Same RPM at sea level, maybe the prop was repitched(as I said above) an inch or two. Take it up to 10k', and if the turbo trim wheel is matched well the engine will have no trouble at all generating enough torque to turn the prop at 2280 or likely much better.

As the plane rolls down the runway, as we've agreed, the resistance on the prop blades is lowered, and the RPM picks up. At some point, there needs to be a limit on the prop or it will overspeed. It can be a mechanical limiter like a constant speed prop, or it can be a simple electronic rev limit, or it can be the operator pulling back on the throttle to keep the RPM at 2700 or so.

Do we get all the benefits of turbonormalizing without a CS prop? No we don't because the throttle has to be retarded on the TO roll. Do we get some benefit over the non-turbo? Oh yes, plenty of extra HP. Since it's an EXP, I could even go for one of the aftermarket CS type props as well and gain all the power, at an increase in weight and complexity.

 

[Henning]

But they also have constant-speed props. Your true airspeed rises with altitude, as drag drops, so with a fixed-pitch prop you can't take advantage of it without overspeeding the engine. I fail to see how you'll use power that can't be used without an increase in pitch. You'll just end up mushing along.

Dan

It's not a linear deal though. There used to be a turbo normalized C-150 based at Leadville with a FP prop.

 

[Tony_Scarpelli]

I know there is a Rajay STC for Mooney F models. I do not know if they have another one or not. The only Turbo nornamlized Mooney F I Have seen is a Rajay setup like the Comanche uses.

Who made the turbonormalizer setup for the Mooney M20F ?

Enstroms have a turbo, it may be another source for the pieces you need (throttle operated wastegate, turbo). But they are also fuel injected.

 

[Dan Thomas]

That's ok. I'll explain in gory detail.

Take a bone stock 172, with a 150HP engine and a bone stock fixed prop. The max static RPM at sea level is 2280(landplane) which presumes full MP. This is conforming, and as the plane takes off, the prop speeds up to redline if nothing else is done, at least if everything is working right. so, the pilot throttle back, or climbs to thinner air, or both.

Take the same plane to 10k' alt and see what the max static RPM will be at ~25.42 MP. Yes, there is less resistance on the prop blades, but I assure you the static RPM will be significantly less. Suppose there was a way to get that static RPM back up to at least 2280, and possibly even more?

Have you ever actually done that? I used to do the test flying after replacing the engines in our flight school 172s. Lycoming's test regimen includes two hours of 65-75% power, and a final half-hour of full throttle operation, keeping the RPM within redline (2700 RPM). I always found that the RPM was at redline (on a calibrated tach) at full throttle at any altitude between 4000 and 7000 feet and at various temperatures.

That's how fixed-pitch propeller pitches are determined. The engine should reach redline at full throttle in level flight. A climb propeller will go beyond redline if the pilot isn't careful, but bone-stock props just won't. And you sure won't ever encounter 2280 RPM at full throttle in flight, even in a Vx climb.

Dan

 

[docmirror]

OK, does anyone know what the O-320 runs in air CFM? Here's what my old car engine ratios came from:

CuFt x RPM x VE / 3456
320 x 2700 x .93 / 3456 = 232 CFM at redline. This seems a bit high for the MA-4 to flow, but I guess it'll do. I'm still considering the PS-5C going side/up draft either draw or blow. I know the rates on that carb will flow 329 CFM cause it's in the book I have. That has the 2-1/8 opening.

I'm looking at a MHI TE04H-G13 which has an A/R of about .45 with a .87 trim wheel. Here's the comp map, where 0.1 ~ 200CFM and 0.14 ~ 300CFM. This looks ideal so far. The only issue is the pressure ratio is a bit too high. going to limit it to 100LL fuel.

http://www.stealth316.com/images/te04h-13c11-raw.gif

 

[Henning]

I get a 403 permission error on that link.

 

[docmirror]

Sorry, start here and drill into the raw maps embedded.

http://www.stealth316.com/2-3s-compflowmaps.htm

 

[Henning]

Wait, are you going to use a single small turbo?

 

[docmirror]

Yes, it's sized for 200-240CFM with 1.5 PR at 72% eff rate. For a slow moving aircraft engine it looks about right. The good news is the exhaust flange is the same as a Garrett/Turbonetics TO-3, so if I need to go bigger, it's a fairly easy swap. I can go up to a TO-3 with different comp wheel.

 

[Henning]

I'm more concerned with the turbine throughput and back pressure.

 

[docmirror]

Me too. That is the downside of this size turbo. I might just opt for the T3 with a similar A/R on the comp side to keep the backpressure down. I will definitely have a TIT gauge and keep a close eye on things.

I got the turbo and a O-320 manifold for $165. I'll have the turbo rebuilt before starting, so even if it doesn't go real well, I"m still only into it for less than half an AMU. I figure I'll start small and grow if needed. Most turbo applications are oversized for the required air throughput.

 

[kgruber]

If it is experimental I'd just get the turbo off an old Corvair Spyder. I think it was an "Air Research" I bought one new in 1963.

Corvairs had some problems, but never with the turbocharger. It was bullet proof.

Size should be right, Spyders had 150 HP.

 

[docmirror]

If it is experimental I'd just get the turbo off an old Corvair Spyder. I think it was an "Air Research" I bought one new in 1963.

Corvairs had some problems, but never with the turbocharger. It was bullet proof.

Size should be right, Spyders had 150 HP.

I thought about that. It was a good unit. Oil cooled, and it didn't run super hot. I had a few Corvairs in my day. Later Spyders went up to 180HP. A lot of modern turbos are water cooled now. Can't have that on this appl.

 

[KSMooniac]

Who made the turbonormalizer setup for the Mooney M20F ?

Enstroms have a turbo, it may be another source for the pieces you need (throttle operated wastegate, turbo). But they are also fuel injected.

There was a Rajay aftermarket mod for the Mooney M20C (180 hp, carb) as well as the M20E and M20F (200 hp FI). It used a manual wastegate and added a "second throttle" to control the turbo engagement...very similar to the Comanche setup that Tony mentioned above. You might be able to find the specs for the system with enough digging, or even an example in a boneyard.

You might start with a phonecall here: http://www.rajayparts.com/rajaystc.html

 

[docmirror]

If it is experimental I'd just get the turbo off an old Corvair Spyder. I think it was an "Air Research" I bought one new in 1963.

Corvairs had some problems, but never with the turbocharger. It was bullet proof.

Size should be right, Spyders had 150 HP.

There was a Rajay aftermarket mod for the Mooney M20C (180 hp, carb) as well as the M20E and M20F (200 hp FI). It used a manual wastegate and added a "second throttle" to control the turbo engagement...very similar to the Comanche setup that Tony mentioned above. You might be able to find the specs for the system with enough digging, or even an example in a boneyard.

You might start with a phonecall here: http://www.rajayparts.com/rajaystc.html

Interesting intersection. The Rajay used on the Corvair was a Rajay 300 series, and the same basic turbo with different trim was used on most of the aftermarket aircraft STCs. Sadly, the Rajay doesn't have a built in wastegate which means one more lever to push in the cockpit to keep it from bootstrapping or overboosting. And maybe to be safe, add a BOV. now things are getting hairy.

 

[docmirror]

found a decent deal on a slightly bigger blower.

http://wichita.craigslist.org/pts/4108011535.html

Weird exhaust flange though. I don't want to get one that's leaking like a sieve.

 

[mtuomi]

Me too. That is the downside of this size turbo. I might just opt for the T3 with a similar A/R on the comp side to keep the backpressure down. I will definitely have a TIT gauge and keep a close eye on things.

I got the turbo and a O-320 manifold for $165. I'll have the turbo rebuilt before starting, so even if it doesn't go real well, I"m still only into it for less than half an AMU. I figure I'll start small and grow if needed. Most turbo applications are oversized for the required air throughput.

"A/R on the comp side to keep the backpressure down", you're getting compressor and turbine mixed up there?

Small turbine housing and no active ignition control is a dangerous combination. Depending on your cam profile, you might have issues with residuals.

 

[mtuomi]

found a decent deal on a slightly bigger blower.

http://wichita.craigslist.org/pts/4108011535.html

Weird exhaust flange though. I don't want to get one that's leaking like a sieve.

Thats from an old B21ET/B230FT Volvo. The downpipe on them has a conical flange that bolts to those holes you can see on the wastegate cast.

Waaaaay too small for a 320ci engine.

Its also watercooled,

 

[mondtster]

Thats from an old B21ET/B230FT Volvo. The downpipe on them has a conical flange that bolts to those holes you can see on the wastegate cast.

Waaaaay too small for a 320ci engine.

Its also watercooled,

Water cooled or not makes no difference on those ancient T3s. Just plug the holes and move on.

 

[dell30rb]

I can see how increasing the pitch of the prop will allow you to take advantage of turbo normalizing at altitude, but this will come with a big takeoff and climb performance loss below 5000 feet. You'll be lugging the engine at full throttle/low rpm @ climb airspeeds

 

[Henning]

I can see how increasing the pitch of the prop will allow you to take advantage of turbo normalizing at altitude, but this will come with a big takeoff and climb performance loss below 5000 feet. You'll be lugging the engine at full throttle/low rpm @ climb airspeeds

Not if you add a few inches of boost.

 

[docmirror]

"A/R on the comp side to keep the backpressure down", you're getting compressor and turbine mixed up there?

Small turbine housing and no active ignition control is a dangerous combination. Depending on your cam profile, you might have issues with residuals.

Maybe written not clearly. Similar A/R on the comp side, with a larger turbine of the TO-3 variety, rather than the small MHI turbine will reduce backpressure.

 

[Henning]

Maybe written not clearly. Similar A/R on the comp side, with a larger turbine of the TO-3 variety, rather than the small MHI turbine will reduce backpressure.

I'm not even so sure that turbine is big enough. Aircraft is high volume/low velocity, these little car engines are the opposite.

 

[docmirror]

I can see how increasing the pitch of the prop will allow you to take advantage of turbo normalizing at altitude, but this will come with a big takeoff and climb performance loss below 5000 feet. You'll be lugging the engine at full throttle/low rpm @ climb airspeeds

Ok, leave the pitch alone, and operate the wastegate at sea level to prevent overboost/bootstrap.

Guys, everything is a compromise. Unless I want to go with a different prop, I've got what I've got. I need more oomph at 8-10k feet. Manual wastegate solves all problems but with the added hassle of controlling it by hand.

 

[docmirror]

I'm not even so sure that turbine is big enough. Aircraft is high volume/low velocity, these little car engines are the opposite.

I gave my calcs for the flow rate in CuFt/min. I'm guessing 200-240CFM for a 320 @ 2700. This seems to correlate pretty well with a single choke MA-4 carb. How big, or what model is recommended?

I've been trying to find the specs for the Rayjay 325 turbo, but it's too old, not much info available.

 

[Henning]

Ok, leave the pitch alone, and operate the wastegate at sea level to prevent overboost/bootstrap.

Guys, everything is a compromise. Unless I want to go with a different prop, I've got what I've got. I need more oomph at 8-10k feet. Manual wastegate solves all problems but with the added hassle of controlling it by hand.

Yep, that's the way it is. You could also get the waste gate and controller off a TSIO-470 or 520 and set it to the pressure you want. Just remember to add 2" of manifold pressure to make up for the turbo.