"super" normalized engine?

Capt.Crash'n'Burn

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
1,097
Location
Lompton,CA
Display Name

Display name:
Capt.Crash'n'Burn
Does anyone know of a plane engine that uses a crank driven supercharger along with a wastegate to maintain atmospheric pressure in place of a turbo?

Seems to me such a system could save some weight, though at the cost of efficiency.
 
Does anyone know of a plane engine that uses a crank driven supercharger along with a wastegate to maintain atmospheric pressure in place of a turbo?

Seems to me such a system could save some weight, though at the cost of efficiency.

No, would make no real sense to do it that way as there is no particular weight savings to be gained. The problem is with a mechanical system for normaling you have to put a waste gate/ dump valve down stream and that's a very poor way to regulate pressure in the manifold.
 
Last edited:
Lycoming GSO 480 has an engine driven supercharger. It was used on a lot of airplanes. Beech Twin Bonanza, Aero Commander, Helio Courier to name a few of the top of my head. I fly one in a Yugoslavian UTVA 66. 340hp @ 48"MP 3400RPM and lots of gas. DOn
 
Lycoming GSO 480 has an engine driven supercharger. It was used on a lot of airplanes. Beech Twin Bonanza, Aero Commander, Helio Courier to name a few of the top of my head. I fly one in a Yugoslavian UTVA 66. 340hp @ 48"MP 3400RPM and lots of gas. DOn


That goes beyond 'normalizing', the limiting of the pressure being the problematic part with a geared supercharger.
 
Lycoming GSO 480 has an engine driven supercharger. It was used on a lot of airplanes. Beech Twin Bonanza, Aero Commander, Helio Courier to name a few of the top of my head. I fly one in a Yugoslavian UTVA 66. 340hp @ 48"MP 3400RPM and lots of gas. DOn

If I remember correctly they used a "pop off" valve to protect the motor in case of overboost.. A wastegate is used to regulate manifold pressure and altho the pop off does the basic same function the waste gate operates during all operations and the pop off opens ( hopefully never).
 
That goes beyond 'normalizing', the limiting of the pressure being the problematic part with a geared supercharger.

Hennings is right on there........ if one can get a variable speed gear set to drive the supercharger then it would work.... The complexities of such an arrangement would make it next to impossible to get FAA approval.
 
I could see some sort of CVT (continuously variable transmission) belt drive device to do this, but the complexity and weight issues you would have to deal with to get it to accurately and autonomously vary the speed ratio to maintain 1 atmosphere on the manifold would make it a poor choice. The turbonormalizing method is more efficient, lighter-weight, and already certified on many aircraft.

To the OP - is there a particular situation you were wanting to experiment with?
 
How could a crank-driven supercharger weigh less than an exhaust-driven turbo? Seems to me that it has a lot more (or maybe just bigger) parts and would always weigh more than a turbo?
 
Correct me if I'm wrong (like I needed to put that on this board! :wink2:), but doesn't a waste gate reduce the pressure in the exhaust system thereby limiting the boost produced by a turbo charger? It wouldn't help a super charger at all. Or is my understanding woefully mistaken?

John
 
Hennings is right on there........ if one can get a variable speed gear set to drive the supercharger then it would work.... The complexities of such an arrangement would make it next to impossible to get FAA approval.


It would actually have to be a 'variable speed' drive is the problem. We have 2 speed superchargers all the way back on WWII engines, but they are that, 2 speeds and with that you pay a weight penalty over a turbo.The E7 dashes of the 645 EMD engines (2 stroke Diesel, 645ci per cyl, the 20s I used had 3600hp a piece) had a hybrid shaft/turbine drive. The shaft is on the engine with a dog clutch, not enough exhaust to spin the turbine and the dog clutch grabs the shaft and spins it off the crank, as soon as the rpm come up the exhaust pressure takes over and starts spinning the turbine faster than the shaft and pulls it off the clutch.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong (like I needed to put that on this board! :wink2:), but doesn't a waste gate reduce the pressure in the exhaust system thereby limiting the boost produced by a turbo charger? It wouldn't help a super charger at all. Or is my understanding woefully mistaken?

John
You have it correct, a turbo system regulates pressure by regulating compressor speed by dumping pressure ahead of the turbine section.

That is, as you notice, not possible with a shaft drive so the pressure release has to be down stream. The valving required to regulate the pressure smoothly on the high side of the system would be complex, expensive and add weight.

The initial precept in this thread that is incorrect is that a gear drive supercharger system will save weight, that is incorrect in my experience.
 
No, would make no real sense to do it that way as there is no particular weight savings to be gained.

Why would there be no weight savings? by using a centrifugal blower, you're getting rid of half the turbo (the heavier cast iron half) and associated plumbing.

The problem is with a mechanical system for normaling you have to put a waste gate/ dump valve down stream and that's a very poor way to regulate pressure in the manifold.

I realize that, but the way this sould be used, it would only be used up to about 9,000 feet or so. Then it would be closed at cruising FL. As long as you spend most of the time cruising, this isn't even a concern.
 
If I remember correctly they used a "pop off" valve to protect the motor in case of overboost.

Yes, all i'd be doing is setting the pop off valve to a lower pressure, causing it to stay partially open until 9,000ft.
 
Hennings is right on there........ if one can get a variable speed gear set to drive the supercharger then it would work.... The complexities of such an arrangement would make it next to impossible to get FAA approval.


airguy said:
I could see some sort of CVT (continuously variable transmission) belt drive device to do this,

Interesting idea, could one be adapted from a snowmobile???
 
To the OP - is there a particular situation you were wanting to experiment with?

Yes, a centrifugally supercharged Aerovee for a tube and fabric homebuilt. Wieght and costs are both big concerns. I'm thinking the cent. supercharger would be cheaper too.
 
Yes, a centrifugally supercharged Aerovee for a tube and fabric homebuilt. Wieght and costs are both big concerns. I'm thinking the cent. supercharger would be cheaper too.

Wait a minute - a tube and fabric aircraft, with a supercharger to maintain high power (and resulting high TAS) at altitude? Have you ever heard of the term aerodynamic flutter?

(backing away quickly)

Smile and wave, boys. Just smile and wave...
 
Why would there be no weight savings? by using a centrifugal blower, you're getting rid of half the turbo (the heavier cast iron half) and associated plumbing.



I realize that, but the way this sould be used, it would only be used up to about 9,000 feet or so. Then it would be closed at cruising FL. As long as you spend most of the time cruising, this isn't even a concern.

The Garret GT 35 turbo weighs 20 pounds, the functionally equivalent Paxton centrifugal belt driven supercharger weighs 21 pounds.

Your estimation of the problems of downstream pressure control are highly under rated and the downstream pressure control system will weigh at least twice what an upstream waste gate on a turbo does.

I have installed every type of supercharging system available many times on all sorts of engines. There is a very good reason we use turbos, it's the cheapest, lightest most reliable and economical way we have to raise the deck pressure in a controllable fashion. When one needs positive displacement and/or pressures higher than are available with an exhaust driven turbine driving the compressor (horsepower available at the crank being much higher than that in the exhaust due to flow and back pressure issues) then mechanical drive supercharging becomes required.
 
Last edited:
Wait a minute - a tube and fabric aircraft, with a supercharger to maintain high power (and resulting high TAS) at altitude? Have you ever heard of the term aerodynamic flutter?

(backing away quickly)

Smile and wave, boys. Just smile and wave...

ya might want to rethink that..........

There were 10's if not 100's of thousands of bombers and fighters during WW2 that had tube and fabric surfaces..:yesnod:
 
Your estimation of the problems of downstream pressure control are highly under rated and the downstream pressure control system will weigh at least twice what an upstream waste gate on a turbo does.

I.

Also keep in mind you will need port fuel injection for a downstream pressure control systems to work.... A carb or throttle body injecting fuel into the supercharger will lead to ugly situation because when the device dumps excess boost it is not just air but an air/fuel mixture. :hairraise:
 
Also keep in mind you will need port fuel injection for a downstream pressure control systems to work.... A carb or throttle body injecting fuel into the supercharger will lead to ugly situation because when the device dumps excess boost it is not just air but an air/fuel mixture. :hairraise:

Yeah, there is a reason it's not done, it's too difficult to make work well and opens a plethora of failure and maintenance issues.
 
Yes, a centrifugally supercharged Aerovee for a tube and fabric homebuilt. Wieght and costs are both big concerns. I'm thinking the cent. supercharger would be cheaper too.

Is heat rejection a concern? That's reputed to be the big limitation on VW's and VW knock-offs.
 
Yes, a centrifugally supercharged Aerovee for a tube and fabric homebuilt. Wieght and costs are both big concerns. I'm thinking the cent. supercharger would be cheaper too.


:rofl::rofl::rofl: You haven't researched this have you? Turbos are cheaper by a country mile. Besides, if you're experimental and cost conscious you'll be shopping parts at the junkya... err auto recycling center. At any of these you will find a variety of sizes of turbos at a low cost. The only centrifugal ones will be coming off a top end high performance late model Mustang or a Range Rover (if they ever sold the SC model here).
 
ya might want to rethink that..........

There were 10's if not 100's of thousands of bombers and fighters during WW2 that had tube and fabric surfaces..:yesnod:

True - but they had SOME testing and engineering behind them, which a homebuilt is not likely to get - and they still had high non-combat losses which were acceptable in time of war but would not be acceptable otherwise.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against experimental homebuilts - in fact I'm about 2/3 of the way through with my own Vans RV9A, with quite a few modifications from the original blueprints in fact. I'm just saying that the OP is putting himself firmly in uncharted territory and making himself a test pilot in the very literal sense of the word. That in itself is not a bad thing, but test pilots need to pay attention and beware of the dragons hiding in the corners, for humans are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
 
Wait a minute - a tube and fabric aircraft, with a supercharger to maintain high power (and resulting high TAS) at altitude? Have you ever heard of the term aerodynamic flutter?

(backing away quickly)

Smile and wave, boys. Just smile and wave...

How many HP do you think he's gonna get out of a blown Aerovee?

I'd be surprised if he could reliably get 100 hp and keep it cool. 60 to 75 is more likely on a continuous basis.

You just don't go very fast on that kind of HP, regardless of altitude.
 
How many HP do you think he's gonna get out of a blown Aerovee?

I'd be surprised if he could reliably get 100 hp and keep it cool. 60 to 75 is more likely on a continuous basis.

You just don't go very fast on that kind of HP, regardless of altitude.

It depends, I had a 235 HP 2 liter VW engine in a Chenoworth sand rail and didn't have temp problems with it racing in the desert. Wasn't near as much as as after I put a Toronado drive train in.;)
 
It depends, I had a 235 HP 2 liter VW engine in a Chenoworth sand rail and didn't have temp problems with it racing in the desert. Wasn't near as much as as after I put a Toronado drive train in.;)

Apples and oranges.

Different consequences of a failure, different rpm's, and different duty cycles.

The guys who run VW's and conversions in aviation applications pray to Buddha they can make 80 reliable HP and keep the engine cool. Adding forced induction won't help.

Now if it is a racer and the engine is considered a disposable item (like in top fuel drag racing), things are different...
 
Apples and oranges.

Different consequences of a failure, different rpm's, and different duty cycles.

The guys who run VW's and conversions in aviation applications pray to Buddha they can make 80 reliable HP and keep the engine cool. Adding forced induction won't help.

Now if it is a racer and the engine is considered a disposable item (like in top fuel drag racing), things are different...

Racing rails across the desert for a few hundred miles has extreme cooling issues and I assure you we do not consider the engines disposable. That said, I wouldn't use a VWengine in a plane without a reduction unit because the crank isn't made to take the gyroscopic forces. The gear drive also helps with temps as you reduce the ICP required per horsepower.
 
True - but they had SOME testing and engineering behind them, which a homebuilt is not likely to get - and they still had high non-combat losses which were acceptable in time of war but would not be acceptable otherwise.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against experimental homebuilts - in fact I'm about 2/3 of the way through with my own Vans RV9A, with quite a few modifications from the original blueprints in fact. I'm just saying that the OP is putting himself firmly in uncharted territory and making himself a test pilot in the very literal sense of the word. That in itself is not a bad thing, but test pilots need to pay attention and beware of the dragons hiding in the corners, for humans are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

I am VERY aware of that whole "test pilot" thing..:yesnod::wink2::rolleyes:
 

I opened this thread just to point that one out. It's a belt-driven supernormalizer for the DA40 (STC is in progress). It's mounted and driven in the same way as the Premier air conditioning system, so those two additions are mutually exclusive.

Unfortunately, it does not have a "wastegate", it relies on the pilot to set the throttle properly to avoid overboosting. There is a popoff valve, but it's not there to regulate manifold pressure for you, it's there to prevent you from making a very expensive mistake too quickly.

In that way, it's similar to the turbo system on a Seneca - You need to actually set power on takeoffs and go-arounds rather than just shoving the throttle(s) all the way forward. It differs in that there's no positive feedback loop.

Finally - Diamond has an altitude limitation of 16,300 feet IIRC. Since they will not share the necessary data for Forced Aeromotive to remove that limitation, you can't go any higher. You can, however, get up there faster. So, they designed this system with a fairly low critical altitude (something like 8,000 feet) so it's meant to be used with cruise altitudes in the low teens. Looks like they've gotten 150 KTAS at less than 10 gph at both 8500 and 12,500 and up to 164 KTAS if you want to burn more gas. (This on an airplane that was 140 knots prior to the conversion.)

The weight of the Diamond system is 18 pounds, less than the 21-pound engine compartment weights that many later models have installed to alleviate aft CG issues... And it actually does something, unlike the dead weight!
 
Similar to the Seneca it will have bootstrapping issues but worse. I had manual waste gate turbos, it's constant trimming to keep your fuel flow until you top out.
 
Similar to the Seneca it will have bootstrapping issues but worse. I had manual waste gate turbos, it's constant trimming to keep your fuel flow until you top out.
A mechanically driven supercharger will not have bootstrapping issues. While not a "set it and forget it" system like a turbo with a boost controller the MP won't vary with mixture like a fixed or manual wastegated turbo.
 
I opened this thread just to point that one out. It's a belt-driven supernormalizer for the DA40

me too:wink2:

I had just found it a while back as it applies to my plane as well. Honestly might rather have this than the T182 set up of an unsupported turbocharger:dunno:
 
me too:wink2:

I had just found it a while back as it applies to my plane as well. Honestly might rather have this than the T182 set up of an unsupported turbocharger:dunno:


:confused::confused::confused: Reclaimed waste energy vs. crank output consumed? Seriously? For extra weight? Limiting pressure with RPM? What is unsupported about your turbo? Any clue how simple a turbo is to support?
 
Last edited:
Any clue how many exhaust repairs T182s need? Or the goofy wastegate linckage?linkage?
 
Back
Top