Supercharging - What's the catch?

coloradobluesky said:
Turbos use excess engine heat and exhaust pressure that otherwise would be discarded in the exhaust to make the power to pressurize the intake air. Superchargers get their power from the engine via a pulley or other similar arrangement which takes away that power from powering the propeller. This difference makes turbochargers more efficient (use less fuel to obtain the same power). At least that is the way I understand it.
Click to expand...
Turbos have quite a measurable drag on the engine, as well. We added a turbo to a vehicle, and test ran it without the 'cap' that held pressure. It was slower than N/A to be sure.
 
Tell me the part about the manufacturer not trying to sell to you again, that was a good one.
 
The title eluded to a supercharger, then you a turbocharger. Just so you know these terms are no interchangeable. These are two separate albeit similar devices.
 
Spring Ford said:
Napier Nomad
Click to expand...
Damn, that thing is on steroids!

Ultimately any ICE engine is just trying to extract as much power as possible from the expanding exhaust gases from the combustion. A turbine is really nothing more than a giant self sustaining turbo
 
The FAT supercharger is something that's high on my mind as a possible future upgrade. Not a recent thread but I thought I would share for reference some information that I squeezed out of the internet:

Personally, I'm excited about this system but the oil supply is a turn off, if instructions are followed, and the electric pumps are a major concern. Must rely on frequent alternator inspections. Also thought about whether the company will still exist several decades from now for support, but I guess the parts could be fabricated or sourced by other parties if needed. Need to confirm.
 
I'm a turbo normalized A/C owner and the analogies or experiences between cars and airplanes doesn't carryover so cleanly. Especially experiences from a "Bolt on" turbo kit for a car. The two worlds are so different. A TN plane is low boost low to mid-RPM. There are also pressure differentials in both the intake and exhaust which are hard to compare. Remember the plane is boosting to less than standard atmosphere (29.92" and usually limited to ballpark 27" depending on application)

Aviation Consumer had 2 excellent articles on the FAT Supercharger. This seems to be the only mag that uses products and talks with owners gathering their real world experiences. Both of these article are very comprehensive MUST read before making a decision.


Edit: Good to remember in planes; Turbos make boost proportional to altitude without any loss of power at seal-level. Superchargers make power inversely proportional to altitude, with parasitic HP loss needed to drive and overcome the resistance of the supercharger which is not needed at sea level.

Meaning Superchargers rob a few HP power at sea-level and diminish ability to make power with greater altitude. Before someone tosses out turbo back pressure, at sea level the waste gate(s) are open and the turbo is out of the loop (no back pressure problem). Discussion is limited to turbo-normalizing.
 
Last edited:
NordicDave, do you have a 182RG?

I saw that Aviation Consumer wrote a new article last year on the FAT supercharger. Not a subscriber, though :( When getting closer to engine project, I should subscribe..
 
CA182R said:
NordicDave, do you have a 182RG?

I saw that Aviation Consumer wrote a new article last year on the FAT supercharger. Not a subscriber, though :( When getting closer to engine project, I should subscribe..
Click to expand...

My plane is a fixed gear 182P with the Rajay turbo-normalized STC and a Robertson STOL kit. Amazing mountain bird. The plane is shown here: http://welch.com/n46pg/

Aviation Consumer's first article was the positives of the FAT system and second article the downsides and gotchas. A subscription isn't very expensive and they provide a great service to small GA plane owner community. They are the only mag I'm aware of that doesn't just regurgitate press releases but with pictures.
 
Sticking 40 pounds in front of the firewall is HUGE.
I fly an old Cessna with a 520, I rarely fly below 5000'. While more power is always nice, I have never felt like I needed more, or there were places I wouldn't go without more power. I don't like flying when its 90 or hotter anyway, but it still does it just fine.
For $30k, and 40 pounds, no thanks.
 
I would compare adding this supercharger to upgrading to an IO-550. If the price is close, I'd choose the 550.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top