Turbos anyone?

[Toothcarpenter]

I have been fascinated with the idea of turbos, and turbo normalizing. How nice it would be to have sea level power at a six thousand foot elevation strip. I appreciate the guys who can create wonderful things from scratch. I would rather try to use a wheel, that someone else has invented, and proven. Does anyone know of certified singles or twins, that used fuel injected, turbocharged Lycoming 360's? Down at sea level, and at 2000 feet, the 0-360 on the Bushmaster is even impressive. At 6000 feet, and a hot day, not so much. I keep wondering how people fly in Colorado, where quite a few of the strips are 8,000 and above. Thoughts? I know this is not a new idea. Sorry. Thanks!

[mghallen]

Mike Butterfield at Yakima Aerosport had a turbo 360 cub running around. Lots of airplanes have been around with TI-360 motors. Piper made a bunch.

[8GCBC]

I flew a '58 PA-23-160, STC'ed camera plane that "had" normalized turbos to do Google mapping (orthogonal photography and ground sensing). The turbos were removed from the (T)O-320s, they just were not needed for the mission.

[Longwinglover]

Piper had a turbo version of the PA-30/PA-39 Twin Commanche with manually controlled Rayjay turbos on IO-320's.

John Scott

[skywagon8a]

Should you decide to install a turbo you will need to consider the length of time that it takes the turbo to come up to speed. If you have a manual turbo control you will need to run up the engine to generate the exhaust flow in order for the turbo speed to be high enough to generate the manifold pressure which you need. That means that if you are on a gravel strip your prop will be sucking up rocks while you wait or if you just push in the throttle to take off, the turbo will not be up to enough speed to be of any help until after you are in the air. An automatic turbo controller has the turbo up to speed from the beginning so that the power is there from the start. It takes time to spin a turbo up to 125,000 rpm.

Another thing is that a turbo system weighs a lot. Do you really want to add a lot of weight to your engine compartment. I had a turbo system in my 185 which I have removed. The weight savings was 60 pounds. And, the sea level performance improved greatly because of the CG shift aft.

Another thing is that a turbo system is a complicated mechanical nightmare. $$$$$$$$$$$

If I wanted extra power in a Cub for high altitude, I would lean towards an engine with more displacement without the complications of a turbo system. 75% of 200 hp is 150 hp.

[8GCBC]

Displacement is easier to maintain than a turbo. I have seen a lot of trashed turbos, which makes me wonder if I would rely on one to get off the ground at high altitude on a daily basis.

Have an extra assembly in your shop as a ready replacement. Just like tires and brakes. Depending on how many hours a year your fly.

[Toothcarpenter]

Yeah, probably a better idea, than reality, for cub type. Our cars have turbos, and not much trouble. of course they are liquid cooled. That too would be achievable, with a few pounds more. That Thunderbolt, experimental Lycoming 360, with turbo, looked like a nice package, in the literature. I don't know if it is current, and what it costs. The literature I have is dated 09. I was wondering if there were compact packages previously used and proven, like the 320 on the twin comanches, except with the 360. You are right, that Turbos lag a little, but at least where I am familiar with them on gas and diesel engines, of many types, they come on pretty quick, and are quite durable. My Bushmaster started life with a cast iron block, aluminum heads ford engine., and a belt reduction drive, radiator, fixed pitch etc. That conglomeration of stuff weighed about what an 0-540 would weigh. The 0-360, constant speed, works nicely, and goes surprisingly faster, but on a hot day, at 6000 feet, with some camping gear, taking off in a canyon, a bunch more horsepower would have reduced the how high is that ridge? factor.. I think it might be better to just paint a sign on the side that says; See, Pigs Can Fly!! and wait for the day to cool down. The extra heat in the turbo engine compartment, and the durability questions are surely sobering. Seems like there is truly no free lunch. I guess, that if it was fun, cheap, reliable, and easy, everybody would be doing it. The fact that almost nobody is, probably speaks very loudly.

[Bugs66]

Hey Doc, do you run electronic ignition and lean for performance? that helps.

[8GCBC]

I have a "scorpion" (on top of the engine) turbo on my for F350 diesel. The turbo is built like a "Sherman Tank". It has variable vanes, like a constant speed propeller (to help with lag and over heating) and is water/oil cooled. It must weigh half as much as my 0-360! Weight is good on trucks that tow, but nothing like that would be used in aviation.

Bush airplanes and ocean going boats, "there is no replacement for displacement". Some trucks and cars have a good record with turbos.

In Australia, for example, you can only have a light truck with under 3 litres or the tax goes up. So a 2.9 litre diesel with a turbo makes some sense if you tow a tralier without being penalized for a bigger "commercial" engine.

An aircraft like an Aero Commander 500 needs turbos to maitain any type of single engine ceiling. But, those designs are long gone. Just look at the brakes and engine mounts!

My best config is a 0-360 (no Fuel Injection, No turbo, STC'ed Mogas).

[Fortysix12]

someday technology willl bring us a lite weight
clutch driven- intercooled supercharger arrangement.

[Toothcarpenter]

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh, wouldn't that be nice?

[Toothcarpenter]

Buggs; no electronic ignition, Mags. Does electronic, make a big difference in power delivery? I do lean it, Kinda figured out that it needs leaning even on the ground at 2300 feet.. The 360 is quite enough under most conditions. There are those times, when 2X more wouldn't be too much. The cost of going there, doesn't make much sense, but where would we be, without dreaming. I have watched supercubs labor off, at 9,500, in Colorado, on a warm afternoon. I was glad to be watching.

[8GCBC]

The best thing ever for an 0-360 is a MT Prop! Have you flown with a MT? It is amazing. Totally amazing!

[Toothcarpenter]

The closest I've been to an MT, is to stand and admire it, and pet it a little. I know a couple of places, where I could get one to try, but the Husky guys, probably would be fairly unhappy with the concept. The MT is so pretty, it might be worth the price, if only just for looking cool. Like another post I read here earlier, it was alleged that the SC.org member was so old that it was impossible to look cool any more, as in: forget the Bushwheels for coolness. It doesn't work for you! I do think the coolness factor would still be realistic. Kidding aside, I know your comments were serious 8GCBC. It is a new thought, I had never entertained, for the purpose of performance gains, as I knew nothing of that possibility. The attraction to me was the weight differential to the constant speed Hartzell, and the beauty. The beauty, almost puts it in a category, that it looks so good, you don't care if it works or not. A lot of guys spend some serious money on their mistresses, and so I would be in good company. This is an idea worth considering.

[8GCBC]

MT for a seaplane is excellent too. The prop makes my aircraft jump off the water and it does not corrode! I mean ZERO corrosion so far (fresh water). The noise that a MT prop makes is cool too, very distinctive. And noboby wants any extra weight forward on a seaplane! Seaplanes usually have forward empty CGs, the MT is 15 lbs less than most aluminum propellers.

BTW Bushwheels to look cool? They look funky Brah! Only they work great! I love them dearly.

[Fortysix12]

I second the opinion regarding the The MT it is quite impressive on the 180 husky. Lots of departure torque and allows the Husky to sip gas at 105 mph.

[cub2655]

Ray jay turbos are put into Piper Comanches with Lycoming 360 they work well in them, should make a good cub engine at altitude.

[benflyn]

Commander 112TC used a TO-360-C1A6D, turbo carb engine. Maule used a brother to this engine in the M5-210TC (TO-360-F1A6D), Commander used the Dynafocal mount and the Maule used the conical mount.

This engine is rated at 42" max manifold pressure continuous. By the performance charts at 20,000 ft power is down to 200 hp from 210hp.

This is an angle valve engine.

1800 hr tbo

[benflyn]

TO-360 dry weight 345 pounds.

[aktango58]

someday technology willl bring us a lite weight
clutch driven- intercooled supercharger arrangement.

Mad Max of the skies!

[swoeric]

Rather than the clutch you would run a bleed off valve similar to large superchaged motors that wouldn't idle and made awesome supercharger roll...this makes docking a boat or parking a car horrible...whipple has now included this in their modern systems...at no load situations the bost is minimized and fuel saved....once deep in the throttle and need of power the valve is closed and full boost to the engine.....the supercharger i would look at is called a rotrex http://www.rotrex.com/Home.aspx...id run the valve manual so that i dont have to stress the cyclinders when i dont care to