Turbo Charging A Lycoming

[Dave Clifford]

Has any one heard of, or know of, anybody who has fitted an automotive turbo to a Lycoming or any other aircraft engine?? You can buy a new one from an automotive performance supply house for the price of the core value for aero turbo. They look about the same and you can even buy one maufactured by Garrett.

[dust]

the pistons are different in a turboed and non turboed aircraft engine

[Dave Clifford]

I know that, but thats not the answer to my question.

[dust]

it's part of the answer, you gots to change out the damn pistons on a normally aspirated lycoming to turbo it

[John Slade]

That's only of you want to do it the "recommended" way. We're outside that box over here

 

Adding an auto based turbo hardly keeps you in ther yellow tag world, now does it.

 

Another way to consider it would be - what would happen if I installed an automotive turbo on a Lycoming and didnt change the pistons.

 

My guess - it would probably swallow its valves for lunch (instead of dinner).

[Marc Zeitlin]

Originally posted by John Slade

Another way to consider it would be - what would happen if I installed an automotive turbo on a Lycoming and didnt change the pistons.

 

My guess - it would probably swallow its valves for lunch (instead of dinner).

It depends on what you're using the turbo FOR. If you want to boost above atmospheric pressure to get more than 180 HP out of the engine, then yes, you'll have a problem unless you drop the compression ratio. If, on the other hand, all you want is turbo normalization so that you keep 75% power up to altitudes much higher than 8K ft., you shouldn't have any problem at all - the engine doesn't know what altitude it's at - it just sees a certain amount of air coming in, and if it gets the same air at 15K ft. that it would have at 3K ft. without the turbo, it'll run just as if it was at 3K ft.

 

So, the answer is "it depends".

[Dave Clifford]

My primary reason for turbo would be for full H.P. at high altitudes. So you see no reason an aftermarket automotive turbo would not work on a lycoming if the engine compression was set up for one??

[Marc Zeitlin]

Originally posted by clifford

My primary reason for turbo would be for full H.P. at high altitudes. So you see no reason an aftermarket automotive turbo would not work on a lycoming if the engine compression was set up for one??

I see no reason that turbo-normalization couldn't be made to work (in theory) on a lycoming. You will need a wastegate that never allows the boost pressure to be higher than sea level pressure.

 

The short answer is it should work.

[Dave Clifford]

Thats what I thought. Thanks Marc.

[ekisbey]

If you're going the turbo-normaliztion route, what kind of differences in available power would you have at altitude?

[Dave Clifford]

The turbo compensates for the loss of air density as altitude increases thus maintaining h.p.

[marbleturtle]

You may have a difficult time finding a "pop-off-valve" that only allows atmospheric pressure. Without it, you'll be facing serious detonation problems that can only be controlled by a well programmed ECU and electronic ignition.

 

A few high performance cars are running around with high compression engines and a high pressure turbo charger. But if the ECU ever has a brain fart, those engines detonate like artilery shells.

[ekisbey]

How much weight are we looking at adding to the engine when a turbo is added? I ask this because I'm strongly considering a 320 instead of the 360 (actually, my order of preference is 320, 13B, and then 360), and it sounds to me like a turbo normalized 320 would have the same power available for cruise at altitude as a non-turboed 360.

 

Upon reflection, though, I don't think I've ever seen a turboed 320...

 

Of course, the real question is whether or not a turboed 320 would end up weighing the same as a 360, in which case I might as well go with the 360 and have the extra 20 horses available at sea level.

 

Then again, it might all be a moot discussion for me; I might require the larger engine to get my CG in range anyhow. Decisions, decisions! Where does it all end??

[John Slade]

you said:

>my order of preference is 320, 13B, and then 360

 

then you said:

>whether or not a turboed 320 would end up weighing the same as a 360, in which case I might as well go with the 360

 

Good to know you've come to a conclusion, Evan! Please let us know what it is

[Aaron]

Originally posted by marbleturtle

You may have a difficult time finding a "pop-off-valve" that only allows atmospheric pressure. Without it, you'll be facing serious detonation problems that can only be controlled by a well programmed ECU and electronic ignition.

Blow Off Valves (the "Pop-off" you reference) are used only to vent throttle-off transient boost spikes. In an airplane, you won't have these transients unless you shut the throttle very quickly. To control steady-state boost a wastegate can be used, these are adjustable.

[marbleturtle]

You'll hear a waste gate or a blow off valve referred to as "pop-off" valves. I was discussing waste-gate valves. There are adjustable valves, but in automotive applications, the waste-gates I've seen all have a range from medium to high positive pressure. Neutral atmospheric pressure is no benifit to automotive tuners. I wish you luck.

[Aaron]

Almost any wastegate (even "non-adjustable" OEM types) can be adjusted to 0 boost simply by lengthening the actuator rod. Shortening slightly fron there gives you mild boost Another way is to put a pressure regulator between the manifold and wastegate such as the "Dial a boost" product. This could give you cockpit control of the boost.

 

Wether its worth all the effort for normalization, it's hard to say.

 

For those looking to turbo-read Corky bell's book-very good, steps you through the process of selecting a custom turbo setup

[dust]

Well, one of our plane buddies, as a regular (1 out 3 or 4 plane days) he has been upgraded from slave, is a retired automotive engine engineer. We talked about auto turboes and his feeling is that they are designed for a temporary boost in power, not for continious use. In his words, they are a cheep way of gaining HP in cars.

[Aaron]

But by any chance did he work for GM or ford during the 70's? Many American automakers still believe "there is no replacement for displacement" but it's simply not true anymore.

 

Turbos are an excellent way of recovering otherwise wasted energy, modern turbos can be used continuously, and there's nothing cheap about a properly designed turbo system.

[dust]

Well, yes he did, and also the 80's and 90's. It still remains that the auto turboes that he is familiar with are not designed for continious use, just as the engine is not designed to give continious hp in a car, my truck has 300 hp, no turboe, just 10 cylenders and it won't deliver 300 hp in all day use and survive. The fact remains, most turboes on cars are designed to work occassionally, not constantly, and use of an everyday auto turboe should be done with that in mind.

[dust]

OK,, let me rephrase this a little, which ones are designed for continious operation.

[HM Andersen]

If in doubt of the durability of the turbo charger unit.Then you might pick one for a tractor,or a combiner.

I know by expirience that they work at 100% powersetting day and night for several thousand hours.Garret makes them and they would cost less than 1200$

[dust]

are these diesel or gas engines?

[Aaron]

The turbo systems for cars are not limited by the turbo's capacity- the limit is the engine itself, and the vagaries of auto use, such as non-constant speed use, throttles slamming shut, turbo lag, etc.

 

Making a general statement that turbos can't handle constant power doesn't make sense. What about turbine engines? can turbines not handle constant power?

 

Diesel or Gasoline makes no difference, much of the time they use the same model of turbo.

 

You do have a good point though, in that auto-conversion can't just take what works in a car and slap a prop on it. The operating conditions for a plane are very different and require larger turbos in general, than would be acceptable in an automotive use.

[dust]

Arron wrote

Making a general statement that turbos can't handle constant power doesn't make sense. What about turbine engines? can turbines not handle constant power?

_______________

 

I just reviewed all of my posts and I didn't say that

 

Our helper knows auto engines and he knows them well, forty years or so in the direct design, engineering, and testing of automotive engines is real info not to be casually thrown aside.

 

I am trying to learn about this subject from many sources and I am not closed minded.

 

Learning that piston size only counts if you are trying to increase HP is real info, which my buddy confirmed.

 

Aaron wrote

The turbo systems for cars are not limited by the turbo's capacity- the limit is the engine itself, and the vagaries of auto use, such as non-constant speed use, throttles slamming shut, turbo lag, etc.

___________________________

 

We talked at length about the "duty cycle" that is expected out of an aircraft turboe versus the auto turboe, he knows the auto one very well and is quite capable of understanding the role of one in an aircraft application, thats why he cautioned me about thier use.