What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Turbo-Charging A Lycoming/Continental 360 Engine

cliveure

I'm New Here
Any one out there got any information on the specifications of the turbos, wastegate and/or pop off valves etc needed for the 360 cubic inch Lycoming engines. I want to use two turbos not one.
 
I believe the lycoming o-360-c1a came with a turbo, a parts manual for that should give you some numbers for parts, but that would be for just one.
 
check this out
From Superior
3. Are Turbocharged versions available?
Superior produces a turbo-normalized (TNIO-360) engine for Lancair. This engine application was developed for the Lancair Legacy FG and is sold only through Lancair. Due to the variations in induction systems, exhaust systems and cowlings of the airplanes offered in the experimental market, each turbo-normalized application can be very different and require different sized components. Superior will work directly with any kit manufacturer that would like to offer a turbo-normalized (TNIO-360) engine application.

See this link
http://www.eaa62.org/progress/show-item.php?item=blog1/20060514.itm&bid=blog1
 
Turbocharged RV8

The cover story on the February 2004 Sport Aviation features a very clean Turbocharged RV8.

John Clark
RV8 N18U
KSBA
 
cliveure said:
Any one out there got any information on the specifications of the turbos, wastegate and/or pop off valves etc needed for the 360 cubic inch Lycoming engines. I want to use two turbos not one.
Any reason for the twin turbo setup? Seems like a lot of extra work if one would be sufficient. It's EXTREMELY hard to syncronise two turbos to balance boost on a single engine. Mooney did it recently with the Acclaim, but they used single wastegate (or acutator, not sure...). I'd look real hard at doing a single setup. Also look at Tornado Alley Turbo, they make a kit of IO-360's for Cardinal RG's...
 
cliveure said:
Any one out there got any information on the specifications of the turbos, wastegate and/or pop off valves etc needed for the 360 cubic inch Lycoming engines. I want to use two turbos not one.

If you want to use modern parts and do it at a reasonable price I can help you match the compressors, intercoolers and turbines. Need to know hp, MP and altitude ranges you plan to operate at. The twin turbos package a lot easier in most cases and allow the use of turbos with integral wastegates, again easing plumbing concerns. A big single turbo is a plumbing nightmare on opposed engines generally with long crossover pipes, slip joints, support structures and heavy remote wastegates.

Low mounted turbos will require an oil scavenge pump as well.

There is a lot to it to make it work right. Be sure you need these for your mission before you start and be aware of RV Vne limitations at higher altitudes.
 
Last edited:
Cool idea but not practical? (for a RV)

cliveure said:
Any one out there got any information on the specifications of the turbos, wastegate and/or pop off valves etc needed for the 360 cubic inch Lycoming engines. I want to use two turbos not one.
That is nice if Ross to offer to help with info on a custom auto based component design; he knows his stuff and it might save you money over a aviation set up, but it will still add: expense, weight, complexity, maintenance and turbo charging a Lyc not made for turbo charging can have negative effect on the engine.

My main point is WHY? How high do you want to fly or need to fly? If you do you will be sucking O2 thru a tube. As Ross mentions the Vne/Flutter margins get ran into. RV's are a "Sport Plane", "Total Performance" which is very versatile and a good cross country plane but not it's main purpose. Except for X-C the turbo is baggage since it only comes into play above say 8,000-10,000 feet.

With that said it would be cool if Ross or someone was able to fab a system based on auto components. The Superior engine is big money. Don't have a $ but I think you might be shocked. I guess about $20k over base engine or about $50 would be a min.
 
I was planning on doing an auto-based setup for awhile, then I thought about it. Can't run 50W oil through most auto turbos, that means new bearings for the turbos or a completely seperate oil system.... I stopped there.
 
I'm going to work with Ross on this one and I will keep you updated, however here are some comments gentlemen...... Twin Turbos because the plumbing is WAY less and both fit nicely on either side of the engine tucked under the back of the exhaust on either side, [seen a lot of larger Lycoming engines with twin turbos and they worked just fine], short tubes into the engine air inlet, mounted right on the exhaust manifold [thicker wall tubing] high enough for feed oil to drain back into the pan without any scavenge pump. Using intercoolers, internal wastegates and a preset pop off valve. All I am doing is turbo-normalizing as all my flying is between 10 and 14 thousand feet between the islands [Bahamas], keeps me away from all those Sunday VFR flyers !!!!! and I want to be able to use my Hartzell to its full potential up there.
 
That is nice if Ross to offer to help with info on a custom auto based component design; he knows his stuff and it might save you money over a aviation set up, but it will still add: expense, weight, complexity, maintenance and turbo charging a Lyc not made for turbo charging can have negative effect on the engine.

My main point is WHY? How high do you want to fly or need to fly? If you do you will be sucking O2 thru a tube. As Ross mentions the Vne/Flutter margins get ran into. RV's are a "Sport Plane", "Total Performance" which is very versatile and a good cross country plane but not it's main purpose. Except for X-C the turbo is baggage since it only comes into play above say 8,000-10,000 feet.

With that said it would be cool if Ross or someone was able to fab a system based on auto components. The Superior engine is big money. Don't have a $ but I think you might be shocked. I guess about $20k over base engine or about $50 would be a min.


My answer would be why not? There are as many pros for doing it as cons. My FBO is at 6000', and my main route of flight within 40 minutes takes me over 14,000. My regular flights are to Aspen, Eagle Vail, Leadville, Telluride, and for cheap gas, Los Alamos is 20 minutes away. Although not for everyone, I would LOVE to see a 200-210 HP TN. I have a V-tail with a TN
IO 520, and now can't imagine flying without it.
My .02 .
 
I didn't know there was a date limit. ;) Did the relevency change over two years?

Nope............ it's still relevant.

I don't know which RV model you're thinking, but my 6A has no problem flying out of 6 or 7000' msl airports, and getting up to that 14000' --- without any type of turbocharging. It just has an Lyc 0360A1A with a Hartzell C/S prop.

I'll admit that I'm not consciously watching the climb rate, but I never feel that it's hindered, such as it was in Piper Archers, Cessna 172's, etc.

Just something to think about, since it does add weight & complexity.

L.Adamson --- RV6A
 
I The twin turbos package a lot easier in most cases and allow the use of turbos with integral wastegates, .

Ross:

How would twin turbos work on a Lycoming 360? You would have only two cylinders. I have not heard of many successful twin engine turbo setups. Honda had one on a 650 twin I think. I believe it was not particularly successful due to the pulsing of the exhaust. That was quite awhile ago so there may have been advances that take care of that problem. The 360 Conti might be a better choice for that as 6 cylinders have been twin turbo's.

Bob Parry
 
If you are just interested in gaining some high-altitude takeoff performance but worried about heat issues, a supercharger might be a better road to take.

Superchargers such as this one are inexpensive and reliable. The ProCharger line is nice because it has a self-contained oil system (no need to plumb it into the engine).

P-1SC.blower.jpg


If you want the ability to switch it off to prevent overboost at low altitude, an electric clutch such as the one shown below on a roots-type supercharger are light weight and not overly expensive (shown model is by Warner Electric, www.warnernet.com - you need to register to search their stuff). Extra pictures give an idea of their simplicity - they are extremely reliable. You may lose an inch or two of manifold pressure with the supercharger switched off if you don't install a bypass valve.

SuperchgrP.gif
UniDamp2.gif
accompressorclutches.gif


On the other hand you could leave it running all the time and simply control your urge to push the throttle to the firewall...

:D

Edit: For those unfamiliar with superchargers, unlike turbochargers they do cost you some in fuel flow as the power gained comes at the expense of some power used by the supercharger. A rough rule of thumb is 25% of the power gain is "stolen" by the pump. Thus, if you had an IO-320 with 160 sea level hp and wanted to produce full rated power at 15,500' (where the engine only produces about 50% of rated hp normally aspirated), then the supercharger would need to add back 80hp. However, 20 would be robbed by the supercharger, leaving you burning sea level fuel burn for only 140 hp, or about 1gph lost. Considering that superchargers do not create nearly as much inlet heat as turbos, this 1gph loss is probably a good investment in that you are less likely to burn up your engine as quickly. I have heard MANY reports that turbo'd engines frequently only reach about 50% TBO.
 
Last edited:
I agree with the supercharger idea, but I think a turbo setup is better suited for a plane.

My car is equiped with a supercharger. I have a Cobalt SS. It's a 2.0L inline 4 with a Eaton M Series roots type supercharger.

As you said, the biggest problem with superchargers is that you have to turn the turbine all the time. On a root type, it's not too hard. A geared unit, like the ProCharger, is another story.

My stock setup uses a by-pass valve. Most of the time it's opened : the blower sends air into the intake manifold but it does not get compressed because there's a bleed valve that dumps that air outside. In my case, the by pass valve dumps the excess air back into the intake tube, between the filter and the supercharger. Since the supercharger uses a positive displacement setup(it does not compress the air, it simply brings too much to the engine) and is not geared, I loose almost nothing when I'm not boosting. This translates into good fuel economy (30-35mpg highway). When I need power, I push the thoothle : that opens the throotle and also closes the bypass valve. Because the supercharger was already spinning, I get instant boost. I still get 215hp+ when I want to! No turbo-lag.

Centrifugal type supercharger, like the ATI Procharger line, use a turnine that is similar to a turbocharger. Since it needs to spin faster, it's normally geared to go faster. You can also use a bypass valve but you still have to accelerate the spinning turbine and that means "parasite drag" to the free revving engine. This translates into poor fuel economy. You best option in this case is to use a clutch. Mercedes uses a similar setup on their kompressor series (the clucth system).

I really think that a supercharged system is superior to a turbocharger system for an OEM car. No need for oil lines or cooler lines, no need for special shut off procedures (turbo timer), no worries about EGT, etc etc. Best of all : instant boost for bettre driveability.

For customized application, the turbo is probably a better choice : easier to tune, more efficient, you can install it anywhere (not driven by the crankshaft or pulley) and cheaper. You don't really care about turbo-lag on a plane : you're not shifting gears!

That point alone (installation location) is worth a lot on a small cowled plane like a RV
 
Interesting thoughts, but I don't follow you on a) fuel economy or b) parasite drag.

Yes, there is a small amount of parasite drag with any compressor setup. But, the turbine is tiny in both size and mass. If, for example, you used a bypass as you suggested (dumping the extra air at startup) then the amount of drag will be minimal. On accelleration I doubt you would notice any lag at all.

As for fuel economy, it is my understanding that centrifugal superchargers are far superior to roots-type. The fuel economy thing would be a factor of around 1-10%, depending on altitude and the amount of boost being generated. In other words, not terribly significant and probably less expensive than the extra strain on an engine created by the additional heat introduced by a similar performing turbo.

If anything, a supercharger will be more reliable than a turbo. Yes, there is a belt - but modern belts are far less likely to break than a turbo.

I do like your idea of a bypass valve. Better yet would be a valve which automatically opens above a preset absolute value, say 32" MP. Or, even 28" since for us conservative types the goal would simply be to prevent significant loss of power. But, I know nothing of how such valves work or where you could get them.
 
probably less expensive than the extra strain on an engine created by the additional heat introduced by a similar performing turbo.

If anything, a supercharger will be more reliable than a turbo. Yes, there is a belt - but modern belts are far less likely to break than a turbo.

If by "extra strain ... additional heat introduced" you mean the increased temperature of the induction air, that heat is primarily due to the compression of the air, not the type of compressor used. (After all, heat of compression is what makes a diesel work). The cure for that is an intercooler, and they are widely used on both supercharged and turbocharged installations. The turbocharger can/will radiate a lot of heat into the cowling area, but that's an important but manageable systems/installation issue, not a strain on the engine itself.

"More reliable". Modern turbochargers are quite robust, and unlikely to just "break". The installation - that's a different story. Any one-off forced induction setup is a formidable systems integration challenge that should not be underestimated.
 
Last edited:
Interesting thoughts, but I don't follow you on a) fuel economy or b) parasite drag.
[...]
If, for example, you used a bypass as you suggested (dumping the extra air at startup) then the amount of drag will be minimal. On accelleration I doubt you would notice any lag at all.

You are correct. By using a bypass valve or a clutch, you eliminate the parasite drag. There is absolutely no lag at all. I rev the engine to 3500rpm slowly, i.e. in 4th at 60mph. If I floor it, I get 13psi of boost instantly : my boost gauge needle literately jumps from 15-20inHg of suction to 13psi of boost. Newer turbo technologies (twin-scroll turbos) can minimize "turbo lag" bu it's still there.

As for fuel economy, I was referring as fuel economy while not using the blower, i.e. low power setting. A centrifugal supercharger's turbine is probably more efficient than a root type but most of the time, the "drag" caused by the gearing will probably end up canceling this advantage. In both cases, a clutch or bypass valve will also eliminate this problem when not boosting.

For the valve, see this neat youtube video, you can see the throttle body, the bypass valve, the supercharger and the inter cooler.

The actuator is a small diaphragm actuator similar to one on a turbocharger wastegate. On my car, it is only controlled only by the vacuum, no electronic system in there.

One PLUS of using a bypass valve : on a regular supercharger setup, if the belt breaks, you have to suck air from the blower that's not tuning anymore : this is almost impossible. With a bypass valve, if something goes wrong with the turbine, you'll suck air from it! It's a nice safety feature.
 
Any one out there got any information on the specifications of the turbos, wastegate and/or pop off valves etc needed for the 360 cubic inch Lycoming engines. I want to use two turbos not one.

Why not just hang a Continental TSIO-360 off a Piper Seneca? They've been around a long time and are good engines.
 
Wow, a clutched supercharger...reminds me of Mad Max.

I'm assuming these turbochargers and superchargers are low boost. Otherwise you would have to lower your compression ratio to avoid any engine damage...
 
If by "extra strain ... additional heat introduced" you mean the increased temperature of the induction air, that heat is primarily due to the compression of the air, not the type of compressor used.

In theory that is correct - and understand that I am not an expert, but have just read multiple posts in multiple forums for what little knowledge I have - but what I have heard from every forum is that some of the exhaust heat used to drive a turbo is transferred to the compressor section, so that a turbo always runs significantly hotter than a supercharger.

The cure for that is an intercooler, and they are widely used on both supercharged and turbocharged installations. The turbocharger can/will radiate a lot of heat into the cowling area, but that's an important but manageable systems/installation issue, not a strain on the engine itself.

Ideally yes; however we start running into space and weight and cooling drag issues here, which can become somewhat self-defeating. Certainly possible; I know for example the P-38 used intercoolers.

"More reliable". Modern turbochargers are quite robust, and unlikely to just "break". The installation - that's a different story. Any one-off forced induction setup is a formidable systems integration challenge that should not be underestimated.

The difference between the turbo and the supercharger is heat - one is driven by a belt, the other by 1400 degree exhaust gasses. The latter is simply a more challenging environment and thus more prone to failure.

Another more subtle difference is the size of the impellers used to compress the incoming gas. Turbos tend to use smaller impellers driven at higher RPMs. This keeps the mass lighter and more responsive to throttle changes at the expense of a small amount of efficiency (e.g. more of the energy is spent overcoming the friction of the air passing through, which in turn heats the air passing through more than just the amount that higher pressure would account for).

Please note that I'm not bashing turbos. I'm simply offering an alternative, and pointing out that many, many people have tried turbos in aircraft only to discover that they could not reasonably deal with the heat issues.

Edit - thanks to the other poster for the link to the bypass valve. While I was there, I noticed this video about Procharger supercharging with one of the nation's formost race engine builders. He talks a bit about how superchargers are simply easier on the engine and can use "pump gas" to generate silly amounts of power. Warning: the video may start you to wishing you had 1200hp under the cowl...

:D
 
Last edited:
Wow, a clutched supercharger...reminds me of Mad Max.

I'm assuming these turbochargers and superchargers are low boost. Otherwise you would have to lower your compression ratio to avoid any engine damage...

lol - great flick! Personally I only care about "turbonormalizing." Some day, when the budget allows! I don't think the compression ratio is so important taken by itself if you aren't boosting to over 32" or so. Whether that is "low boost" or "high boost" would depend on what altitude you are trying to create that 32" at - boosting to 32" from 25,000' is probably high boost!
 
I don't think the compression ratio is so important taken by itself if you aren't boosting to over 32" or so.
I'm no expert, so this question might be quite stupid. But, if you don't have an intercooler, and thus have high induction temperature, are we sure that it is OK to keep the CR the same as it is on a normally aspirated engine? I would have expected the higher induction temperatures to increase the risk of detonation, unless we lower the CR.
 
TC vs. SC

This could be an auto forum.

From my racing experience, installing a proven TC or SC kit is a pain.

The reason many SC kits are not intercooled is simply that they don?t compress enough air to raise the temperatures enough to require an IC. However, changing the pulley sizes can increase the speed of the turbo which results in the need for an IC.

As for reliability; on the road TC?s tend to be more reliable than SC, mostly because you don?t have to worry about the belt slipping or breaking.

I know many guys who started with SC?s and then ripped them out and went TC because it provides more power, even at the low end.

Also, the best comment I heard of regarding parasitic drag from a SC was, ?It is like driving with the AC on.?

Give me dual big ceramic coated turbos with intercoolers and set the waste gate to limit boost to sea level AKA turbo normalize.

If you want to see how to do it, go study how Mooney did it.
 
I agree with you Bill. "getting it right" with a S/C is a lot more work compared to a turbo.

I know I lot of guys that got "plug & play" S/C kit from a known manufacturer for their cars(Vortec & ATI) and were quite disapointed with the performance. Running with the A/C on sums it up pretty well ;)

You really have to get it right. Too big a pulley (low speed) and you don't get enough boost. Too fast and the engine bogs down at low-rpms. Pulley slippage and alignment is also a big issue.

On my car, I'm running around 13psi of boost. I get around 9psi at 2000 rpms. The engine is equiped with a water to air intercooler - a seperate coolant circuit with a small electric pump. It's complicated and heavy... not the type of thing I'd like to have on an airplane... but on my car, it's a really neat system.

One thing for sure : when it's really hot, I can really feel it's not making 100% power : I don't get up to 13 PSI. In my case, the limiting factor is not a valve that control boosts, it's the speed of the blower. With a turbocharger, the boost is controlled with a wastegate. Higher density altitude = the wastegate will make more air go in the turbine, it will spin faster and you'll get the same amount of boost. That, for one, is a really good reason to go with a turbo. You "air flow range" is not limited like on a S/C.

Some S/C emulate this with a bleed valve... my car is equipped with one but it's not really effective. It's used by the PCM to limit boost to 5psi in 1st and 2nd gear... Without it, I get around 14-15 PSI before hitting the red-line. It opens up and leaves air bleed out to maintain the "boost spec" of 13. When it's too hot, the blower can't even reach 13...

I could install a smaller pulley... that way, I'll get to 13psi when it's hot but that means that I'll be "over-boosting" most of the time and that's wasted energy. The big problem here is that the Supercharger RPM to Engine RPM ratio is fixed, unless you're using multiple-speed S/C... and that's rare on modern S/C. With a turbo, the turbine can go a little faster when the air is thin and a little slower when it's thick. The range is not unlimited but at least you have a range :p

Alright, enough typing!
 
On my car, I'm running around 13psi of boost.

Ok guys, in order to have a meaningful discussion on AIRPLANES we need to remain in the realm of reality.

First off, 13psi = about 26" of MAP boost! Holy pizza, Batman - that should take you to 50,000' on a bad day... That sort of overboost is not recommended in any production aviation engine today - and pardon me if I respectfully decline to go flying in any RV fitted with such a monster turbo! Had my excitement flying supersonic young, now working on "old pilot..."

Next, you talk about RPM ranges. Hello, 95% of aircraft flight time is spent between 2000-2700 RPM - only a 27% rpm difference. There is NO NEED for "low end boost" because we aren't looking for torque "off the line," so clearly we can simply tune for the high end.

5 psi of boost should be enough to maintain 75% power up to nearly 17,500'. I don't know of an awful lot of RV flyers who routinely put on the nose bag, and cannulas are fine up to 17,500.'

Going back to our AIRPLANE scenario, with only 5psi of boost at sea level full power available (maybe 6, as it might not be as effective up higher) you can get by without an intercooler using a supercharger. You can also "get by" without an intercooler using a turbo, but the consensus is shorter TBO. In either case adding an intercooler improves engine life, with the advantage still to the supercharger. But, if you don't have the room for the intercooler, then the supercharger starts making a lot more sense.

As for it being like "driving with the AC on" - Instead of thinking of it as "an extra 10" of MAP," think of it as an additional 7.5" of MAP with a small fuel flow penalty. That penalty is likely to pay for itself in engine life if you go the no intercooler route, and possibly even if you do install the intercooler.

So, it all comes back to how much heat are you willing to add to your intake? The graph below compares supercharger solutions; I can't find the graph I once found that added in turbos for comparison but they added about another 100 degrees...:

intercooling_hires.gif


This article discusses the differences between them, particularly noting:
"A centrifugal supercharger on the other hand creates a cooler air discharge, so an intercooler is often not necessary at boost levels below 10psi."

This is the key difference which makes a supercharger a viable alternative (I'm not saying "better" or "worse" - just a reasonable alternative).

Finally, there is that pesky problem turbos have with lubrication. Spinning at 20,000 rpm using engine oil and powered by 1400 degree exhaust gas, sometimes folks forget how carefully balanced they are in terms of engineering. Shutting off your engine too soon after landing can result in the oil "baking" in the turbo, preventing oil flow next time you start from cooling / lubricating your turbo. Bye bye turbo. It may also result in nasty sludge entering your engine from the turbo.

Ok, I've had my say. For those absolutely certain that a turbo is the way to go, knock yourselves out. But let's keep the conversation in the realm of the reasonable for folks who might want to know all the facts. The reality is that each has it's strengths and weaknesses, and both are more complicated than normal aspiration.

:)
 
Finally, there is that pesky problem turbos have with lubrication. Spinning at 20,000 rpm using engine oil and powered by 1400 degree exhaust gas, sometimes folks forget how carefully balanced they are in terms of engineering. Shutting off your engine too soon after landing can result in the oil "baking" in the turbo, preventing oil flow next time you start from cooling / lubricating your turbo. Bye bye turbo. It may also result in nasty sludge entering your engine from the turbo.

A few things:

Firstly, a 20,000rpm turbine speed isn't going to give you much boost - you'll be looking at 60-80,000rpm min, more likely towards 120,000 - but don't let the numbers frighten you. This isn't the archilles heal of any adequately manufactured turbo.

Shutting off the engine too soon is a very unlikely scenario in aviation circles -unless you're boosting heavily to maintain cabin pressurisation, by the time you do the circuit/pattern, land and taxi in you're unlikely to be running near peak turbine temperatures, although not hurrying this process is a good idea. An accusump-type pressurised oil reservoir can be set up to deliver additional oil after shutdown to aid bearing housing cooling, but obviously this adds weight too...

Assuming the turbo is adequately lubricated with clean oil, the thing that kills them is vibration! They tend to be mounted a long way from the engine's CoG on the end of flexible exhaust manifolds, so keeping the engine-excited turbocharger vibration down to acceptable levels can be tricky. Get this right and your turbo will live a long and happy life.

The other thing that is catastrophic for turbochargers is overspeeding - both in absolute terms and in exhaust turbine high-temperature* fatigue terms. The turbine manufacturer should be able to give you speed limits for compressor, bearing housing and an acceptable life limit on your exhaust turbine. Keeping to the lesser of these limits at all times ensures a happy turbo, but measuring turbine speed can be problematic.

A

* this also means you have to have your TIT's under control too
 
Last edited:
Firstly, a 20,000rpm turbine speed isn't going to give you much boost - you'll be looking at 60-80,000rpm min, more likely towards 120,000 - but don't let the numbers frighten you.

Well, I learn something new every day. That speed might have something to do with why turbos exit air is higher temp than a supercharger, don't know. I thought it was strictly due to heat transfer from the hot side. Superchargers are fixed in relation to engine speed, running "only" 15,000-20,000 rpms depending on engine rpm and pulley size.

I did forget to link a company that has already developed a full supercharger kit for the IO-540 - Aerosuperchargers. Their price approaches outrageous, though, when you consider the cost of the individual components.
 
That speed might have something to do with why turbos exit air is higher temp than a supercharger, don't know. I thought it was strictly due to heat transfer from the hot side.

No, the turbo speed is pretty irrelevant. The surface area of a turbocharger compressor is minimal and so is heat transfer - compare with how much surface area you need to install with an intercooler to make it work

The "extra heat" of an (automotive) turbocharger installation is usually because they're used at much higher levels of boost. 8psi for a turbocharger is hardly worth the bother. More normally it'd be 15-18psi and compressor outlet temps of up to 150?C (300?F) Most of this temperature is from compression and adiabatic inefficiency - 18psi would take 70?F air up to 250?F at the same adiabatic efficiency used in your graphic above.
 
Since we've gotten off turbos momentarily... let me move back there:

Tornado Alley has recently revised their IO360 kit for the C177RG, so I'm gonna try to get the info off them for the turbo they use, the intercooler and stuff. It really doesn't add that much complexity.

Dangit... by the time I'm done, I'll have convinced myself to Turbo the -4 again.
 
TURBO ADVICE & TECHNICAL HELP

Hello Team

Alas this thread has gone quite for a while and just when it was getting interesting - however I am seeking Technical Advice (read part numbers and suppliers in USA and Canada) :confused: for a Turbo Normalized system.

I am building a RV8 over at Innovative Wings Hangar (Builders Assist in Canada) I want to add a Turbo Normalized system to my Aero Sport Power IO-400 (215 HP) it will be used in Australia to fly above 10,000 feet (we use Oxygen above 10,000 down-under) to avoid the rather large sub-tropical Cu and cruise away from the summer convective turbulence.:cool:

Thus can any member please advise (using a Turbo Normalized System) regarding compatible systems or who may have a skill-set which may be able to help this endeavour?

I need some advice and steerage on what current compatible components are available nowadays and what I may need please?? I am really having some difficulty in research at finding proven compatible systems for Experimental Aircraft.

Most of the systems I was/am familiar with (Turbo Arrow III, Turbo Comanche) are no longer in production (or have been taken over i.e. RayJay by Hartzell). Hatzell and RAM will supply a turbo however will not (liability :rolleyes:) recommend a compatible system...

Anyone...
 
Foxhound,
I built up a turbo system that didn't quite work right.
After I returbo'd it using Ross' advice, I was very satisfied with the performance.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top