KR> turbo

[Jaco Swanepoel]

Hi Guys,
Any ideas on what size turbo to put on my VW 2.4L. I want to replace the rajay 
with an T2 or T3 with a built in waste gate. I was thinking of a garrett. Any 
thoughts?
Regards,
Jaco Swanepoel
Pretoria
South Africa
KR2S, ZU-DVP 

KR> turbo

[Willie van der Walt]

  Jaco please give your contact details. I could not hear your voice mail 
the other day.  Reply to touri...@intekom.co.za  or phone me again on 
0835805703
  Regards
  Willie

  - Original Message - 
  From: "Jaco Swanepoel" 
  To: 
  Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 2:55 PM
  Subject: KR> turbo


  > Hi Guys,
  > Any ideas on what size turbo to put on my VW 2.4L. I want to replace the 
rajay with an T2 or T3 with a built in waste gate. I was thinking of a 
garrett. Any thoughts?
  > Regards,
  > Jaco Swanepoel
  > Pretoria
  > South Africa
  > KR2S, ZU-DVP
  > ___
  > Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
  > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
  > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
  >

KR> turbo

[Solly Melyon]

Hello Jaco,
  I just purchased a kr2.  Nice plane but a bit haeavy.  I am extending the 
wings to reduce wing loading and would like very much to add a Turbo.  Could 
you please provide me with information on the rajay unit you have or how to go 
about installing a rajay here localy in US.  What are the diferences between 
rajay and the other units you want to change to?
  Thanks,
  Solly Melyon
  sollymel...@yahoo.com

Jaco Swanepoel  wrote:
  Hi Guys,
Any ideas on what size turbo to put on my VW 2.4L. I want to replace the rajay 
with an T2 or T3 with a built in waste gate. I was thinking of a garrett. Any 
thoughts?
Regards,
Jaco Swanepoel
Pretoria
South Africa
KR2S, ZU-DVP 
___
Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html



-
Check out the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful email and get 
things done faster.

KR> turbo

[Ronald R.Eason]

Rayjay is not manufactured any more.  They were brought out by Turbonetics. 
Try these sites:
http://www.turbofast.com.au/welcome.html
http://www.turbochargers.com/
http://www.turbocity.com/default.php?cPath=68
http://www.lnengineering.com/
http://www.turboneticsinc.com/


Ronald R. Eason Sr.
President / CEO
Ph: 816-468-4091
Fax: 816-468-5465 
http://www.jrl-engineering.com 
Our Attitude Makes The Difference!

-Original Message-
From: krnet-boun...@mylist.net [mailto:krnet-boun...@mylist.net] On Behalf
Of Solly Melyon
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 11:47 AM
To: KRnet
Subject: Re: KR> turbo

Hello Jaco,
  I just purchased a kr2.  Nice plane but a bit haeavy.  I am extending the
wings to reduce wing loading and would like very much to add a Turbo.  Could
you please provide me with information on the rajay unit you have or how to
go about installing a rajay here localy in US.  What are the diferences
between rajay and the other units you want to change to?
  Thanks,
  Solly Melyon
  sollymel...@yahoo.com

Jaco Swanepoel  wrote:
  Hi Guys,
Any ideas on what size turbo to put on my VW 2.4L. I want to replace the
rajay with an T2 or T3 with a built in waste gate. I was thinking of a
garrett. Any thoughts?
Regards,
Jaco Swanepoel
Pretoria
South Africa
KR2S, ZU-DVP 
___
Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html



-
Check out the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful email and
get things done faster.
___
Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html

KR> turbo

[Orma Robbins]

Hi Net
This reply is a bit late, but perhaps will aid anyone wanting awesome power.
Getting the genie out of the bottle is not a problem, keeping the genie from
blowing up the bottle is quite a bigger concern.  I wrongly used the
rational.  Ford utilized a t3 in the turbo coupe and made 180 or so HP
from their 2300 engine.   In the Turboford.org forum, there are guys with
300HP and up versions.  My 2366 type 4 VW has a shorter stroke then the ford
and is probably making way over the magical 100HP.   I was wrong in thinking
that I actually had time in the cockpit to manually control the boost.   I
would always start with the waste gate open and set my boost on the roll,
during the first few seconds after full throttle was applied.  keeping
control of the power is the essential part.   Full boost would have been too
much for the engine as it could easily make over 40hg on a cool day.
After one more vehicle project I shall return to my KR engine and this time
I plan to install a BOV.

I'm not sure an automatic waste gate is a good idea.  at altitude,  how well
will it function? .

I could not use full power and full boost at the same time between surface
and say7000'   I have been to 10 and still had plenty of boost at full
power.  I will probably have to fly it west to see what it can do.   I have
not had the pleasure of doing that yet.

If I'm correct a smaller turbo spools faster but gives you less total boost.

Orma L. Robbins
N110LR 1984 to present

KR> turbo

[jeffyor...@qx.net]

I too have been fascinated with turbo power to as you say, to release the
genie.

I have a 2.2 turbo Shelby Dodge 4 banger that I was able to do lots of
research and therefore modifications to get a pretty reliable 360 plus HP. I
also have other turbo charged sport racing cars.

My desire to apply such knowledge to a VW or other aircraft power plant, is
not only the control of the boost, i.e. waste gate, but I have more concern
on how to properly control the air fuel mixture. This is because the fact
is, when you increase boost, you directly effect air fuel mixture. To much
fuel and we all know that washes the cylinder walls and we quickly waste the
piston rings, if the air fuel mixture gets to lean. then we experience burnt
valves and if it is to lean we can burn a hole in a piston in just seconds.

Of course the other issue is the higher air temps of the mixture, that's of
course is why intercooler's came to be. But an intercooler is not mandatory.

In the early days of turbo charging, the fuel mixture was a major source of
engine failure. The advent of computer controlled air fuel mixtures, better
metering of fuel by fuel injection, better intake systems designed
specifically for turbo's, map sensors, O2 sensors and so on. All these
technologies allowed for letting the genie out of the bottle with greater
power and more reliability.

Of course all those great technologies come with much greater complexity and
of course more weight. If I was building another plane and it was a lot
bigger then a KR2, I would not be as concerned. However, all the turbo
systems that I have seen associated with a VW for an experimental airplane,
all looked to be of the older technology. Not what I want to fly behind. I
certainly do not want to be tooling around the sky without the needed gauges
and systems to monitor a turbo and therefore making me wonder? Is my engine
running to lean, is it running to rich? Is my turbo developing 5 lbs of
boost or is it developing 20 lbs of boost?

As I say, I am fascinated by this subject and would enjoy hearing more from
what Orma and others have done and learned.

Jeff York
KR-2 Flying
N839BG
Home page  http://web.qx.net/jeffyork40/
My KR-2   http://web.qx.net/jeffyork40/Airplane/   to see my KR-2
Email jeffyor...@qx.net

- Original Message - 
From: "Orma Robbins" 
To: "KRnet" 
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 6:17 AM
Subject: Re: KR> turbo


> Hi Net
> This reply is a bit late, but perhaps will aid anyone wanting awesome
power.
> Getting the genie out of the bottle is not a problem, keeping the genie
from
> blowing up the bottle is quite a bigger concern.  I wrongly used the
> rational.  Ford utilized a t3 in the turbo coupe and made 180 or so HP
> from their 2300 engine.   In the Turboford.org forum, there are guys with
> 300HP and up versions.  My 2366 type 4 VW has a shorter stroke then the
ford
> and is probably making way over the magical 100HP.   I was wrong in
thinking
> that I actually had time in the cockpit to manually control the boost.   I
> would always start with the waste gate open and set my boost on the roll,
> during the first few seconds after full throttle was applied.  keeping
> control of the power is the essential part.   Full boost would have been
too
> much for the engine as it could easily make over 40hg on a cool day.
> After one more vehicle project I shall return to my KR engine and this
time
> I plan to install a BOV.
>
> I'm not sure an automatic waste gate is a good idea.  at altitude,  how
well
> will it function? .
>
> I could not use full power and full boost at the same time between surface
> and say7000'   I have been to 10 and still had plenty of boost at full
> power.  I will probably have to fly it west to see what it can do.   I
have
> not had the pleasure of doing that yet.
>
> If I'm correct a smaller turbo spools faster but gives you less total
boost.
>
> Orma L. Robbins
> N110LR 1984 to present
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html

KR> Turbo

[Jaco Swanepoel]

I am running a VW 2.4 Liter Turbo and I am extremely happy with the 
performance. I use a Garret T2.5 turbo with an internal waste gate. I had to 
do a carbon seal conversion because of the suck through setup I have with 
the carb. I had to fit a 300mm x 200mm x 50mm Intercooler in order to 
effectively use the turbo. At 1350lbs taking off from FAWB at 4100ft ASL I 
have a average climb rate of 480 fpm.

Jaco Swanepoel
KR2S, ZU-DVP
Pretoria
South Africa 

KR> Turbo

[D Lively]

Jaco:

That is near the sea level rate of climb for a Cessna 150 "Spam Can" @ 
1600lbs gross ..

Don
- Original Message - 
From: "Jaco Swanepoel" 
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 10:35 AM
Subject: KR> Turbo


>I am running a VW 2.4 Liter Turbo and I am extremely happy with the
> performance. I use a Garret T2.5 turbo with an internal waste gate. I had 
> to
> do a carbon seal conversion because of the suck through setup I have with
> the carb. I had to fit a 300mm x 200mm x 50mm Intercooler in order to
> effectively use the turbo. At 1350lbs taking off from FAWB at 4100ft ASL I
> have a average climb rate of 480 fpm.
>
> Jaco Swanepoel
> KR2S, ZU-DVP
> Pretoria
> South Africa
>
>
> ___
> Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
> Post photos, introductions, and For Sale items to 
> http://www.kr2forum.com/phpBB2/index.php
> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
> 

KR> Turbo

[Virgil Salisbury]

 Check out the early Newsletter for many turbo
 installs and info, Virg

KR> turbo

[Orma]

Hello Net
this is an update on the turbo and a test message.  The turbo was reinstalled a 
couple of weeks ago.  I need to test run the aircraft, but here in Michigan it 
is too darn cold or the ground is too slippery.

Orma
Southfield, MI
N110LR celebrating 20 years
Flying, flying and more flying
http://www.kr-2.aviation-mechanics.com/

KR> Turbo/supercharging

[Ronald R.Eason]

FYI,

Volkswagen will be selling a combination supercharger and turbocharger when
its 2006 Golf goes on sale in Europe later this year. Called a "Twincharger"
by VW, the system promises to increase power in the 1.4 liter gas engine by
some 20 percent. Fuel consumption will average 39.2 mpg. 

Go old American Engineering from Eaton Mfgr. Others are looking at this
also. GM is using Eaton Superchargers.

Read about it at.

http://www.designnews.com/article/CA6262571.html?nid=2327&rid=282736823

KR> Turbo engines

[Peter Diffey]

Hi,

In the early 90's just about every car manufacturer in Europe offered a 
petrol turbo, it was an easy way to bring a performance model to a dull 
model range - it was also "sexy".

Today in spite of the many advances made in engine design over the last 
10 years, turbos have pretty much disappeared, with the exception of the 
exotics, 911s etc. There are still plenty of diesel turbos about.

I suspect that the a major reason for the disappearance may have been 
poor reliability,  as the market place has become more competetive, 
manufacturers have had to offer better warranties, and turbos just could 
not deliver, too many blown engines, fires etc.

I share the view of others contributors who think you cannot go bolting 
on a turbo to an engine that was originally designed to produce 40 or so 
HP at 4000 revs, boost it to perhaps 0.85 bar and develop perhaps 80 HP 
at 3300 revs and expect it to last very long. You want to start thinking 
different pistons, coated bores, sodium valves etc. In addition you have 
to consider either injection or going to a pressurised carb, or you have 
to hang the carb in front of the turbo which could increase the risk of 
icing.

There is also the problem of awful turbo lag,  going round could be fun.

Add all these complications together, and my brain keeps saying 
"80-120HP=Jabiru ", a bit more expensive, but guaranteed TBO and 2/3 the 
weight of a VW.

Pete Diffey
St Albans, UK

KR> Turbo engines

[larry severson]

>I suspect that the a major reason for the disappearance may have been
>poor reliability,  as the market place has become more competetive,
>manufacturers have had to offer better warranties, and turbos just could
>not deliver, too many blown engines, fires etc.

The big problem is that there are too many who need to "burn rubber" 
because they can. Rapid throttle advancement will ultimately shorten 
the life of any engine. When I was an airline pilot, we added power 
slowly as a general practice. The max temp reached during takeoff as 
a result was 10 degree C lower and the engine life was doubled. The 
turbo is tempting, but it is not necessary to stress the engine.


Larry Severson
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
(714) 968-9852
lar...@socal.rr.com 

KR> Turbo info

[Dene Collett]

Hi guys
I am on a nission to learn as much as I can about turbo charging for
aircraft as I can as quickly as I can.
What I need is the URLs of websites that you think are relevant and provide
good info.
If there are any experts among you when it comes to putting turbo's on
aircraft engines, please help me out.
Thanks guys
PS. I know there are many of you out there with tons of useful info, Please
educate me.

Regards
Dene Collett
Avlec Projects cc
Online entrepreneur
www.maxiclix.com
Port Elizabeth 
South Africa

KR> Turbo info

[Willie van der Walt]

Hi Dene
Kontak Jaco Swanepoel. Wat die KR2S gevlieg het.
Groete
Willie

-Original Message- 
From: Dene Collett
Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2013 9:38 PM
To: 'KRnet'
Subject: KR> Turbo info

Hi guys
I am on a nission to learn as much as I can about turbo charging for
aircraft as I can as quickly as I can.
What I need is the URLs of websites that you think are relevant and provide
good info.
If there are any experts among you when it comes to putting turbo's on
aircraft engines, please help me out.
Thanks guys
PS. I know there are many of you out there with tons of useful info, Please
educate me.

Regards
Dene Collett
Avlec Projects cc
Online entrepreneur
www.maxiclix.com
Port Elizabeth
South Africa





___
Search the KRnet Archives at http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search.
To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave at list.krnet.org
please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
see http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org to change 
options 

KR> Turbo info

[Nerobro]

I can't really recommend websites, as they're usually full of some trash.
But, this book, presents all the math, and explains why it all works.  If
you can do the numbers, you can build a turbo system.

http://www.amazon.com/Turbochargers-HP49-Books-Spark-Ignition-Applications/dp/0895861356/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1375984445&sr=8-1&keywords=turbochargers

I am also told this book is good.

http://www.amazon.com/Maximum-Boost-Turbocharger-Engineering-Performance/dp/0837601606/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1375984537&sr=8-1&keywords=maximum+boost

I think I may need to buy this one, because it looks like Gale Banks
endorses it.  Gale Banks is "the man" for turbochargers now.  The turbo v8
on the cover of "turbochargers" is a banks kit.

http://www.amazon.com/Turbo-Real-World-High-Performance-Turbocharger-S-/dp/1932494294/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1375984646&sr=1-1&keywords=gale+banks


On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Willie van der Walt  wrote:

> Hi Dene
> Kontak Jaco Swanepoel. Wat die KR2S gevlieg het.
> Groete
> Willie
>
> -Original Message- From: Dene Collett
> Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2013 9:38 PM
> To: 'KRnet'
> Subject: KR> Turbo info
>
> Hi guys
> I am on a nission to learn as much as I can about turbo charging for
> aircraft as I can as quickly as I can.
> What I need is the URLs of websites that you think are relevant and provide
> good info.
> If there are any experts among you when it comes to putting turbo's on
> aircraft engines, please help me out.
> Thanks guys
> PS. I know there are many of you out there with tons of useful info, Please
> educate me.
>
> Regards
> Dene Collett
> Avlec Projects cc
> Online entrepreneur
> www.maxiclix.com
> Port Elizabeth
> South Africa
>
>
>
>
>
> __**_
> Search the KRnet Archives at 
> http://tugantek.com/**archmailv2-kr/search<http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search>
> .
> To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave at list.krnet.org
> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
> see 
> http://list.krnet.org/mailman/**listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org<http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org>to
>  change options
>
> __**_
> Search the KRnet Archives at 
> http://tugantek.com/**archmailv2-kr/search<http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search>
> .
> To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave at list.krnet.org
> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
> see 
> http://list.krnet.org/mailman/**listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org<http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org>to
>  change options
>

KR> Turbo info

[Dene]

Hi Willie
Dankie, ek het al klaar met hom gepraat. Hy het baie gehelp.

Regards
Dene Collett
Avlec Projects cc
tel:27419560048
cell: 27845805003
Port Elizabeth
South Africa


-Original Message-
From: KRnet [mailto:krnet-bounces at list.krnet.org] On Behalf Of Willie van
der Walt
Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 9:20 AM
To: KRnet
Subject: Re: KR> Turbo info

Hi Dene
Kontak Jaco Swanepoel. Wat die KR2S gevlieg het.
Groete
Willie

-Original Message- 
From: Dene Collett
Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2013 9:38 PM
To: 'KRnet'
Subject: KR> Turbo info

Hi guys
I am on a nission to learn as much as I can about turbo charging for
aircraft as I can as quickly as I can.
What I need is the URLs of websites that you think are relevant and provide
good info.
If there are any experts among you when it comes to putting turbo's on
aircraft engines, please help me out.
Thanks guys
PS. I know there are many of you out there with tons of useful info, Please
educate me.

Regards
Dene Collett
Avlec Projects cc
Online entrepreneur
www.maxiclix.com
Port Elizabeth
South Africa





___
Search the KRnet Archives at http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search.
To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave at list.krnet.org
please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
see http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org to change 
options 


___
Search the KRnet Archives at http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search.
To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave at list.krnet.org
please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
see http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org to change
options

KR> TURBO KR2

[ol' weirdo]

Here is the story re a turbo kr2 from the 1997 January KITPLANES.
Steven Trentman of Owasso, Okla?homa, is flying an unusual Rand-Robinson
KR-2. It has a turbo?prop engine. "I chose the KR-2 because it had a proven
history of being a fine airplane with good speed and range. The airplane
has lots of character," Trentman said.

The result is his KR-2T (T for turboprop), his first (reworked) homebuilt;
Trentman obtained the aircraft from Mike Ladigo of Tulsa, who had built it
with a Porsche Type 4

"I had a couple of the Garrett JFS-100 free?turbine-shaft engines that had
previously been used as air starters in the LTV A-7 Navy attack aircraft,"
Trentman commented. "Mike took one in exchange for the KR-2, and I went to
work in my two-car garage converting the air?plane."

Trentman not only installed the turboprop engine but carried out additional
modifica?tions. He reconfigured the aircraft from tail to dragger to
trigear, redid the instrument panel, changed the canopy latching system,
and added a 36x11-inch electro-hydraulic belly board speedbrake that is
activated by a switch on the control stick.

Ladigo had originally widened the cockpit a few inches, so Trentman had
additional crea?ture comfort in the area. Yet Trentman's new powerplant,
which resulted in a nose 1 foot longer, needed a different engine mount and
cowling, which Trentman fabricated. The engine develops 90 shp with a
36-inch, three-blade Ivoprop that turns at 3000 rpm at full power. The
total weight of the engine with its prop drive and accessories is 120
pounds. The airplane carries 27 gallons of fuel-6 per wing and 15 gallons
in a header *tank. *

The rework took Trentman a year. and he flew his new airplane for the first
time on May 5, 1996. Empty weight is now 710 pounds and maximum gross is
1200 pounds, which is con?siderably more than the numbers published for a
76-hp, VW-powered KR-2.

With two aboard his KR-2T, Trentman reports a takeoff distance of 1200-1400
feet with liftoff at 90 mph. Cruise speed is 140 mph on 75-80% power (2600
prop rpm) and 8-12 gph fuel consumption. Downwind is flown at 90 mph,
slowing to 70 mph on base and 60-65 mph on short final, touching down at 45
mph, Trentman said.

Cost of the project is estimated to be $15,000-$20,000. "But it's worth
$100,000 as far as I'm concerned," Trentman said.

He likes it.



The article includes a couple pictures. The important one shows the engine
to be long with what appears to be shaft extending toward the front. There
is a good sized alternator beside this shaft.


Bill Weir

KR> TURBO KR2

[ml at n56ml.com]

KR> TURBO KR2

[ml at n56ml.com]

Kitplanes wrote:

>>With two aboard his KR-2T, Trentman reports a takeoff distance of 1200-1400
feet with liftoff at 90 mph. Cruise speed is 140 mph on 75-80% power
(2600
prop rpm) and 8-12 gph fuel consumption. Downwind is flown at 90 mph,
slowing to 70 mph on base and 60-65 mph on short final, touching down at
45
mph, Trentman said.<<


All speeds should say IAS, or certainly the landing speed.  If he's
really "touching down" at 45 mph TAS with two aboard, he's replacing the
landing gear and prop every time!  Errors like this make me question the
other numbers.  These fuel consumption numbers should demonstrate why
turbines in KRs are a rarity.  Maybe reliability is the attraction...


Mark Langford, Harvest, AL
ML "at" N56ML.com
www.N56ML.com 

KR> TURBO KR2

[Chris Prata]

cool project but the performance specs dont seem very efficient. high gas 
consumption, long takeoff roll fast pattern speeds, and a gas hog!  plane seems 
a bit heavy too.  
full disclosure, I am a pilot but not a builder (yet). its an impressive 
project from experimentation standpoint with a strong coolness factor too.

 The engine develops 90 shp with a
> 36-inch, three-blade Ivoprop that turns at 3000 rpm at full power. The
> total weight of the engine with its prop drive and accessories is 120
> pounds. The airplane carries 27 gallons of fuel-6 per wing and 15 gallons
> in a header *tank. *
> 
> The rework took Trentman a year. and he flew his new airplane for the first
> time on May 5, 1996. Empty weight is now 710 pounds and maximum gross is
> 1200 pounds, which is con?siderably more than the numbers published for a
> 76-hp, VW-powered KR-2.
> 
> With two aboard his KR-2T, Trentman reports a takeoff distance of 1200-1400
> feet with liftoff at 90 mph. Cruise speed is 140 mph on 75-80% power (2600
> prop rpm) and 8-12 gph fuel consumption. Downwind is flown at 90 mph,
> slowing to 70 mph on base and 60-65 mph on short final, touching down at 45
> mph, Trentman said.
> 
> Cost of the project is estimated to be $15,000-$20,000. "But it's worth
> $100,000 as far as I'm concerned," Trentman said.

KR> TURBO KR2

[brian.kraut at eamanufacturing.com]

Probably would be real efficient at 25,000'.  Not exactly practical for
a KR, but certainly has a lot of cool factor.


 Original Message 
Subject: Re: KR> TURBO KR2
From: Chris Prata via KRnet 
List-Post: krnet@list.krnet.org
Date: Tue, November 03, 2015 11:15 am
To: KRnet 
Cc: Chris Prata 

cool project but the performance specs dont seem very efficient. high
gas consumption, long takeoff roll fast pattern speeds, and a gas hog!
plane seems a bit heavy too. 
full disclosure, I am a pilot but not a builder (yet). its an impressive
project from experimentation standpoint with a strong coolness factor
too.
ions

KR> TURBO KR2

[m.ladigo at cox.net]

I'm not sure where that came from.  Takeoff ground roll was shorter than with 
the piston engine.  Pattern speeds are not changed by the engine type.  Maybe 
you thought the climb rate of over 2000 fpm was the takeoff ground roll.  High 
fuel consumption, ...yes.  Coolness factor, ...off the scales.
Mike

KR> TURBO KR2

[m.ladigo at cox.net]

Ahhh, ...I see where all those numbers came from, now, the Kitplanes article.  
Steve had refined things much more before he sold it.  It had much more 
capability than Steve was using at that time,  Empty weight?  Yes, it gained an 
extra 85 pounds with the new nose gear and cowling.
Mike

KR>turbo installation

[Oscar Zuniga]

Colin wrote-

>Does anyone know of a reasonably priced turbocharger system that can be 
>fitted
>to the 1835 VW? I intend to use it strictly to normalize the engine at 
>altitude
>and not for increased performance, so I will manually control the waste 
>gate,
>and monitor manifold pressure.

You might be interested in the following story from John Dilatush of Salida, 
Colorado.  John has a beautiful Pietenpol with a turbo'd Subaru EA-82 and 
manual wastegate control and flies it out of his home airfield which is at 
about 8,000 MSL:
==
I went to the Rocky
Mountain Regional Fly In this past weekend.  Because I was sequenced too
closely behind another plane on approach, I made the decision to go around.
Due to my own stupidity, when I added full throttle I failed to open the
wastegate of the turbo and the engine overboosted.  The effect of the
overboost was also increased because of the lower elevation of the airport,
5,000' vs 8,000'.  As a result, the engine probably produced 500 hp for
about 5 seconds before it blew coolant all over the place.  I was able to
swing around and land safely on the little ultralite strip.

After landing, it only appeared the damage had been limited to blowing the
exhaust crossover pipe, so on Monday, I rented a car and chased parts in
Denver.

Tuesday I installed the pipe and decided to fly it again.  This time the
engine really blew up blowing coolant and oil all over the place.  This time
I couldn't make a runway, so put it down in a field next to the airport,
landing diagonally to the furrows which gave me a little longer length
between the fence at one end and the ditch at the other end.  Those big old
wheels are sure great for off field landings!  No damage to the airframe,
just a big hole in the crankcase of the engine.

A friend flew over from Buena Vista in his RV-4 yesterday and picked me up.
So now the plane is sitting in a hangar over there, dripping oil and coolant
and waiting for a new engine.

I'll tell you Oscar, there is no thrill like having to cope with an
emergency landing with coolant blowing all over the windshield and your
goggles and having to pee at the same time!


>From my limited time flying anything with a turbo, I know that it's just one 
more thing to attend to when you're busy in takeoff mode... gotta watch the 
top of the green when you throttle up, and you have to nurse it along as you 
climb.  Again, just one more thing to watch.  Oh, and if anyone is 
interested, there are pictures of John's Piet (prior to the accident) at 
http://www.flysquirrel.net/piets/John_piet.html

Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildr...@hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net

_
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

KR>Turbo Install

[Colin]

Oscar and gang,
First, I really appreciate all the input about turbos, and the added 
information concerning their installation.
Second, as a CFI the story concerning the overboosting is why we harp on use of 
checklists (the aircraft wasn't configured correctly in the event of a 
go-around), and the FAA regs require for certified aircraft a manifold pressure 
gauge, and pressure relief valve to monitor and hopefully prevent a 
catastrophic overboost situation. Our discussion of the need for checklists is 
also reinforced by this story, and their use. I do not want to make light of 
someone else's misfortune, but especially when flying is NOT your main pursuit, 
there is alot to be learned from someone else forgetting to configure for 
landing. The same applies to a complex aircraft, not having props forward, gear 
down, etc...
I am interested in using the turbo for altitude compensation only, and plan to 
incorporate opening the wastegate below a certain altitude (whichever one shows 
in testing to be the point that the engine is most effected beyond) as part of 
a descent checklist, and not use the turbo for any flight operations below say 
3000 - 5000 feet depending on manifold pressure, and density altitude day. If 
done correctly, controlling the turbo is no more difficult than keeping up with 
a constant speed prop. It is all according to what you are used to...
Just my opinion...

Colin Rainey KR2(td)
crain...@cfl.rr.com
Sanford, Florida
FLY SAFE

KR>turbo installation

[Ron Freiberger]

Funny how shit happens when you're the busiest.
Ron Freiberger
mailto: rfreiber...@swfla.rr.com

 -Original Message-
Colin wrote-

>Does anyone know of a reasonably priced turbocharger system that can be
>fitted
>to the 1835 VW? I intend to use it strictly to normalize the engine at
>altitude
>and not for increased performance, so I will manually control the waste
>gate,
>and monitor manifold pressure.

You might be interested in the following story from John Dilatush of Salida,
Colorado

KR>Turbo Install

[Ron Eason]

I am using a turbo/fuel injection on my 1835 for the same purpose, how ever
my turbo is sized to never overboost, it goes to 7 psi and that's its
capacity relative to my engine displacement and rpm.  Sizing the turbo right
can help prevent overpressure. I will be using a pressure relief however.
- Original Message - 
From: "Colin" 
To: "KR builders and pilots" 
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 5:26 PM
Subject: KR>Turbo Install


Oscar and gang,
First, I really appreciate all the input about turbos, and the added
information concerning their installation.
Second, as a CFI the story concerning the overboosting is why we harp on use
of checklists (the aircraft wasn't configured correctly in the event of a
go-around), and the FAA regs require for certified aircraft a manifold
pressure gauge, and pressure relief valve to monitor and hopefully prevent a
catastrophic overboost situation. Our discussion of the need for checklists
is also reinforced by this story, and their use. I do not want to make light
of someone else's misfortune, but especially when flying is NOT your main
pursuit, there is alot to be learned from someone else forgetting to
configure for landing. The same applies to a complex aircraft, not having
props forward, gear down, etc...
I am interested in using the turbo for altitude compensation only, and plan
to incorporate opening the wastegate below a certain altitude (whichever one
shows in testing to be the point that the engine is most effected beyond) as
part of a descent checklist, and not use the turbo for any flight operations
below say 3000 - 5000 feet depending on manifold pressure, and density
altitude day. If done correctly, controlling the turbo is no more difficult
than keeping up with a constant speed prop. It is all according to what you
are used to...
Just my opinion...

Colin Rainey KR2(td)
crain...@cfl.rr.com
Sanford, Florida
FLY SAFE___
see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html

KR>Turbo Charging

[Ron Eason]

To all those interested and some of my KR friends find some good info here:
http://www.turbofast.com.au

And, the advantages, if you keep the engine cool:

The Advantages of Turbo-Normalizing



Normally aspirated engines suffer from reduction of manifold pressure as
they climb, which pilots compensate for by pushing in the throttle.  At
about 7,500 feet the engine runs "out of throttle".  As the altitude
increases, the manifold pressure decreases and the plane slows.  Flying
higher becomes more and more inefficient.

With a turbo-normaling system providing sea level air pressure for
combustion all the way to high altitude, the loss of power and speed is
delayed until reaching "the critical altitude". {limits of the Turbo]
Advantageously, the air speed increases as the skin friction of thinner air
density decreases. High altitude capability allows the pilot the choice of:

  a.. Avoiding turbulence
  b.. Maintaining terrain clearance over mountains
  c.. Seeking more favorable headwinds
  d.. Catching tail winds
  e.. More enjoyable clear air and sunshine
  f.. Navigation and communications is better --- longer line of sight
  g.. Obstacle clearance and mountain turbulence, generally 10,000 ft in the
East and 16,000 feet in the West.
  h.. Safety advantage of altitude: 12,500 to 17,500 have least traffic
  i.. Added safety in an emergency from greater glide time.  Area for
landing increases as the square of the range
  At 6,000' glide is about 7 minutes, 12.5 miles

  At 12,000' glide is about 14 minutes, 25 miles

  At 18,000' glide is about 21 minutes, 37.5 miles


Faster speeds mean less engine time, less avionics time and the probability
of  less maintenance

Faster speeds mean greater range with the same amount of fuel

High flight makes available smoother ride, colder air -- less icing risk

KR>Turbo-alternator

[Ron Eason]

http://www.basicaircraft.com/product_bpe14.htm

This is a interesting product. Turbo-alternator.

Ron

KR>Turbo-alternator

[gleone]

 Actually, you can make one for less by using a 12 DC motor.  For instance,
an electric fan motor for a car can be built into such a container and used
to generate electricity to keep the battery charged in flight.  

---Original Message---

From: Ron Eason; KRnet
List-Post: krnet@list.krnet.org
Date: 03/14/04 15:39:30
To: KRnet
Subject: KR>Turbo-alternator

http://www.basicaircraft.com/product_bpe14.htm

This is a interesting product. Turbo-alternator.

Ron


___
to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html

KR> turbo Engine

[Ron Eason]

I am re-building a Hapi turbo with the intent to fly normalized compensation
[without pressuring the manifold].
Normally aspirated engines suffer from reduction of manifold pressure as
they climb, which pilots compensate for by pushing in the throttle.  At
about 7,500 feet the engine runs "out of throttle".  As the altitude
increases, the manifold pressure decreases and the plane slows.  Flying
higher becomes more and more inefficient.

Turbo normalizing can help manitain H.P at altitude.

Excess heat is a problem in any engine but compounded by a turbo. This
excess engine heat can decrease the life of componets there by causing more
attention to maintanance. Adding a turbo to stock engines has a histroy of,
and will compound cooling problems and decrease the operational hours of the
engine by as much as 50% depending on the way the turbo is used and how well
the cooling is handled.

Turbocharging adds to the complexity of engine operation also, and adds more
componets that can fail.

I am convensed that if the cooling problem for any engine [turbo or
otherwise] is address the engine can operate with more hours between
overhauls, taking oils cooling into consideration also.

I am attemping to address the cooling problems by using different materials
[but proven materials] for critical componets of the engine.

KRron

KR> turbo Engine

[Doug Rupert]

Try a supercharger instead. Worked for many years for the military when
piston engines were still a way of life. That is the way I plan on going as
I had an old VW bug with a Judson supercharger that ran like a raped ape and
once the jetting problem was figured out never gave me any problems other
than an excess in speeding tickets.
Doug Rupert
Simcoe Ontario

-Original Message-
From: krnet-bounces+drupert=sympatico...@mylist.net
[mailto:krnet-bounces+drupert=sympatico...@mylist.net] On Behalf Of Ron
Eason
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 12:54 PM
To: KRnet
Subject: KR> turbo Engine

I am re-building a Hapi turbo with the intent to fly normalized compensation
[without pressuring the manifold].
Normally aspirated engines suffer from reduction of manifold pressure as
they climb, which pilots compensate for by pushing in the throttle.  At
about 7,500 feet the engine runs "out of throttle".  As the altitude
increases, the manifold pressure decreases and the plane slows.  Flying
higher becomes more and more inefficient.

Turbo normalizing can help manitain H.P at altitude.

Excess heat is a problem in any engine but compounded by a turbo. This
excess engine heat can decrease the life of componets there by causing more
attention to maintanance. Adding a turbo to stock engines has a histroy of,
and will compound cooling problems and decrease the operational hours of the
engine by as much as 50% depending on the way the turbo is used and how well
the cooling is handled.

Turbocharging adds to the complexity of engine operation also, and adds more
componets that can fail.

I am convensed that if the cooling problem for any engine [turbo or
otherwise] is address the engine can operate with more hours between
overhauls, taking oils cooling into consideration also.

I am attemping to address the cooling problems by using different materials
[but proven materials] for critical componets of the engine.

KRron



___
to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html

KR> Turbo Trouble

[Orma]

Hello Net

Well, here goes a new twist to by plane saga's.  A few week ago the tower 
reported to me that I was smoking like an old Chevy.  At first I though that my 
rings were not yet seated well and I kept flying.  Shortly after that I started 
to see a lot of oil on the right wheel cover and finally after I parked one 
day, the oil started dripping out of the exhaust pipe.  Today, 61 degrees here 
in Michigan, I pulled the turbo.  The T wheel was coated with oil and the 
exhaust pipe from the engine was clean.  I had priced a seal and bearing kit at 
about 80 to $100.  My bearings seemed OK.  It appears that the oil seals have 
been blown.  I went online to research and could not come up with any 
definitive reason.  On one site the submitter of a thread stated that he had 
blown his oil seals, and that his car was making 50 to 60 psi oil pressure.  No 
one would tackle his query and for the most part no one confirmed that there is 
a limit to the pressure that turbo oil seals can take.  One respondent 
suggested that if 30 psi is Normal that 60 psi would blow the seals.  The 
reason that this is important to me is that until my oil is hot, my takeoff 
pressure can and has reached 70 psi on my direct read gauge  I have been using 
10 W 40 oil and selected that because of the high temps that I experienced 
earlier.  I now have to consider whether or which oil I should use after I 
replace the turbo seals.  
As I removed the turbo, I also got an Oh Sxxt, when I noted that the impeller 
has taken an impact and that it will have to be replaced.  With the revflow 
wide open as in take off, there is nothing to stop some pretty large objects 
from reaching the impeller.  This will cause me to make some changes, such as 
only using cowling air until airborne or placing some type of screen in the 
opening of the revflow.  Someone at the gathering was using a screen for his 
carb opening and I can't remember who it was.  If anyone knows or has 
suggestions, please sing out.

Orma
Southfield, MI
N110LR celebrating 20 years
Flying, flying and more flying
http://www.kr-2.aviation-mechanics.com/  

KR> Turbo Trouble

[Doug Rupert]

Thanks for the heads up Orma. Whether or not I go with the Vair or Vdub, a
turbo is definitely going into the mix.
Doug Rupert

KR> Turbo Trouble

[Robert Morrissey]

- Original Message -
From: "Orma" 
To: "KRnet" 
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 2:25 PM
Subject: KR> Turbo Trouble


> Hello Net

> As I removed the turbo, I also got an Oh Sxxt, when I noted that the
impeller has taken an impact and that it will have to be replaced.  With the
revflow wide open as in take off, there is nothing to stop some pretty large
objects from reaching the impeller.

Orma; Sorry I have no advice on the pressure problem.   But, based on a
career that included repairs on aircraft turbine engines, gas turbine
compressors, and aux power units you may be able to repair your
turbine/impeller.  If you have the tech data to give you the metal
composition, and depending on location on the impeller, you may be able to
weld repair the part.  At the Naval Aviation Depot that I worked at we would
do weld repairs on the contour portion up to 0.050 inch deep and on the tip
portion up to 0.250 inch.  The sides of the weld were hand ground and
finished to the same thickness as the original part.  The wheel was then
ground back to the original blue print contour.  If your wheel has not
rubbed on the casing then your wheel should be per print for all practical
purposes. You could try making a template from an adjacent impeller blade
and hand finish the welded blade to match. You may have to do post weld heat
treat and balance. DO AN NDI.
If you are missing a really big chunk, you lose.
 Check out your turbine wheel for damage.  If you have axial cracks in the
hub area between the blades do not panic. These are usually stress relief
cracks and will not continue to grow. We saw a lot of them on GTC100-54  and
GTC 95-2 turbine wheels. Some appeared in less than 10 operating hours.

One last thing to consider.  Treat the turbine as you would the engine by
avoiding thermal shock.  The worst thing you can do is to start the engine,
run at full power for a short duration and then shut the engine off quickly.
This is hard on the turbine and the oil will not be able to do its real job
of post engine shut off lubrication.  Our GTC engines actually had a built
in oil reservoir to keep the bearings lubricated at all times.

Bob
Bought KR2S in boat stage. Building aircraft mfgring facility.

KR> Turbo Trouble

[Orma]

 you may be able to repair

Thanks Bob for the input.  My impeller has about three bent blades.  they 
did not drag on the housing.  If the price of the impeller is not too high, 
I will simply replace it.  After all the path from the impeller to the 
engine is pretty direct.  I would hate to ingest a part

Orma 

KR> Turbo trouble

[Orma]

Hello Net

Sure is quite today.  As an update to my turbo saga, I disassembled the center 
section today and no parts fell out.  The oil seal on the hot side is some 
metal and looks like a piston ring seal.  This seal must be worn out as opposed 
to blown out.  The compressor showed no signs of leaking.  
I uploaded some pictures onto my web site at
http://kr-2.aviation-mechanics.com/turborepair.htm

I have found a new compressor wheel and a seal and bearing kit at 
www.htturbo.com 
they will cost me $89 for the bearings and seals and $51 for the new compressor 
wheel.  My $100. Ebay turbo is now up to $250.  That's still not bad.  Paul at 
High Tech Turbo tells me that the trim is 52 and that the turbine housing is a 
.43 A/R.  These numbers are Greek to me. 

Orma
Southfield, MI
N110LR celebrating 20 years
Flying, flying and more flying
http://www.kr-2.aviation-mechanics.com/

KR> Turbo trouble

[Orma]

Hello Net

Yesterday evening I had a phone conversation with a guy named Paul from High 
Tech Turbo.  He said that my problem was very common.  It appears that once 
again I have stepped in my own pile of .  While I was fighting the 
overheating problem, I decided to add extra oil to the case.  My oil return 
from the turbo drains into the case.  The drain hole position is the oil sump 
area just below the push rod tubes.  With the correct amount of oil installed, 
there was no problem.  However with extra oil (one Quart), the turbo oil return 
is below the oil level and would not allow the turbo to drain.  The rest is 
history.  No blown seals at all, the path of least resistance was the path past 
the Piston ring style turbo oil seal, into the T wheel cavity and down the 
exhaust pipe.  Since it is apart I will change the bearings and all seals and 
install the new compressor wheel.

Orma
Southfield, MI
N110LR celebrating 20 years
Flying, flying and more flying
http://www.kr-2.aviation-mechanics.com/   

KR> TURBO KR.

[ol' weirdo via KRnet]

Among the treasures I have accumulated over the past 54 years is a complete
set of Kitplanes magazines except I’ve lost 2005 August and @010 December.
So the other day a friend gave a bundle of Kitplanes he was throwing out. I
riffled through them but what I wanted wasn’t there but in the 1997 January
was story by Howard Levy describing Steven Trentman’s KR-2 with a Garrret
JFS-100 turban. He is Levey’s story copied.

“Steven Trentman of Owasso. Oklahoma. is flying an unusual Rand_Robinson
KR-2. It has a turbo-

engine and had logged some 200 hours on it. "I had a couple of the Garett
JFS-100 free-turbine-shaft engines that had previously been used as air
starters in the LTV A-7 Navy attack aircraft," Trentman commented., “Mike
took one in exchange for the KR2, and I went to work 1y my two-car garage
converting the airp1ane."

Trentman not only installed the turboprop engine bur carried out additional
modilications. He reconfigured the aircraft from tail-dragger to trigear.
redid the instrument panel. Changed the canopy latching system, added a
36xl I-inch elecrro_hydraulic bellv board speedbrake that is activated by a
switch on the control stick.

Ladigo had originally widened the cockpit a flew inches. so Trentman had
additional creature comfort in the area. yet Trentman’s new powerplant,
which resulted in a nose 1 foot longer, needed a different engine mount and
a cowling, which Trentman fabricated. The engine develops 90 shp with a
36_inch three blade Ivoprop rhat runs at 3000 rpm at full power. The total
weight of the engine with its prop drive and accessories is 120 pounds. The
airplane carries 27 gallons of fuel - 6 per wing

and 15 gallons in a header tank.

The rework took Trentman a year, and he flew his new airplane for the first
time on May 5,1996. Empty weight is now 710 pounds and maximum gross is
1200 pounds, which is considerably more than the numbers published for a
76-hp, VW-powered KR-2. With two aboard his KR-2T Trentman reports a
takeoff distance of 1200 - I 400 feet with liftoff at 90 mph. Cruise speed
is 140 mph on 75-80% power (2600 prop rpm) and 8-12 gph fuel consumption.
Downwind is flown at 90 mph, slowing to 70 mph on base and 60-65 mph on
short final. touching down at 45 mph.” Trentman said.

Cost of the project is estimated to be $15,000-$20,000. "But it's worth
$100.000 as far as I'm concerned," Trentman said.

He likes it. Kp”.

I copied the pictures into ‘my pictures’ but I don’t have the ability to
put them in a form to attach a lead to them. Have to wait for grandchildren
from Toronto.O
___
Search the KRnet Archives at https://www.mail-archive.com/krnet@list.krnet.org/.
Please see LIST RULES and KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html.
see http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org to change 
options.
To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@list.krnet.org

KR> TURBO KR2

[ol' weirdo via KRnet]

I put out the story the turbo KR2  but neglected to ask the question. So,
does anyone know about this plane and is it still flying and so on?
W.
___
Search the KRnet Archives at https://www.mail-archive.com/krnet@list.krnet.org/.
Please see LIST RULES and KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html.
see http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org to change 
options.
To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@list.krnet.org

KR> Turbo VW Tests

[J L]

Gents,

Kind of indirectly related to the KR, but it shares the same power
plant in many cases.

I bought a Revmaster turbo kit from them and adapted it to my Sonerai.
With the same prop and engine I saw 2900rpm static in the past. With
the turbo I am getting 3500rpm static on a 52x56 Cloudcars prop.

Here are a couple of videos detailing the install.

First runs without prop: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXIix10Rzmw

Walk around video of the install: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4NKNy3z4Jg

Test run at 45" MAP: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bfpNlt3TLE

Anyway, we will have the KR back in the air in the next week or so.
Looking forward to getting go fly it again.

Jeff Lange

KR> Turbo VW Tests

[John Martindale]

Blimey Jeff :-)

Did you have the waste gate clamped down or what? Turbos are normally used
to maintain say sea level MP at altitude but 45" on the ground!! Can't
believe the VW hung in there without at least overheating.

Take care with that kind of power.

John Martindale
29 Jane Circuit
Toormina NSW 2452
Australia

ph:61 2 6658 4767
m:0403 432179
email:john_martindale at bigpond.com
-Original Message-
From: KRnet [mailto:krnet-bounces at list.krnet.org] On Behalf Of J L
Sent: Monday, 25 March 2013 11:36 AM
To: krnet at list.krnet.org
Subject: KR> Turbo VW Tests

Gents,

Kind of indirectly related to the KR, but it shares the same power
plant in many cases.

I bought a Revmaster turbo kit from them and adapted it to my Sonerai.
With the same prop and engine I saw 2900rpm static in the past. With
the turbo I am getting 3500rpm static on a 52x56 Cloudcars prop.

Here are a couple of videos detailing the install.

First runs without prop: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXIix10Rzmw

Walk around video of the install: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4NKNy3z4Jg

Test run at 45" MAP: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bfpNlt3TLE

Anyway, we will have the KR back in the air in the next week or so.
Looking forward to getting go fly it again.

Jeff Lange

___
Search the KRnet Archives at http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search.
To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave at list.krnet.org
please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
see http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org to change
options


-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 2641/6202 - Release Date: 03/24/13

KR> Turbo VW Tests

[Jeff Lange]

John, 

It was just above freezing here so cooling was not an issue. Once its back in 
the air I will slowly work from normalizing to boosting. Cooling will likely be 
the limiting factor for how much I can push it. 

Jeff Lange

On Mar 24, 2013, at 11:32 PM, "John Martindale"  wrote:

> Blimey Jeff :-)
> 
> Did you have the waste gate clamped down or what? Turbos are normally used
> to maintain say sea level MP at altitude but 45" on the ground!! Can't
> believe the VW hung in there without at least overheating.
> 
> Take care with that kind of power.
> 
> John Martindale
> 29 Jane Circuit
> Toormina NSW 2452
> Australia
> 

KR> Turbo VW Tests

[Jeff Scott]

Wow Jeff! ?You're making a ton of HP with that. ?Any thoughts on the effects of 
adding 2.5" to the crank length plus running the additional HP? ?I have only 
built one VW based aero engine, but I would question running that kind of HP 
through the VW crank while multiplying the crank loads with an extension at the 
same time. ?I would think the turbo boost will also degrade the life of the VW 
heads, which are kind of a weak area for the engine as well, but I'm sure you 
already know that trade off going in. ?The work looks really good and should be 
a blast to fly.

Are you set up with a programmable automatic waste gate, or is it set up as a 
manual waste gate? ?The automatic ignition timing using the manifold pressure 
to help with ignition timing mapping will be a big help with the boost. ?I've 
seen a guy blow up the a turbo Subaru trying to run a manual waste gate. ?A 
quick throttle response to a runway incursion while on short final and suddenly 
while cursing the plane that cut him off, he found himself with a closed waste 
gate and a serious over boosted engine and blew it up with detonation before he 
recognized what was happening.

I like your approach to the engine and cooling. ?Cooling will be the key to 
longetivy of the heads. ?If you can keep the CHTs and Oil temps in the green, 
you should be good to go.

What about compression on this engine? ?The norm for a turbo boosted engine is 
to lower the compression. ?With the turbo boosting, you don't really have the 
need for high compression at the same time as you can make up for compression 
with boost. ?Are you running relatively high compression pistons, or have you 
lowered the compression down to go with the turbo boost? 

Overall, good job. ?It looks great and will undoubtely be a real rocket to fly.

-Jeff Scott
Los Alamos, NM

> - Original Message -
> From: J L
> Sent: 03/24/13 06:36 PM
> To: krnet at list.krnet.org
> Subject: KR> Turbo VW Tests
> 
> Gents,
> 
> Kind of indirectly related to the KR, but it shares the same power
> plant in many cases.
> 
> I bought a Revmaster turbo kit from them and adapted it to my Sonerai.
> With the same prop and engine I saw 2900rpm static in the past. With
> the turbo I am getting 3500rpm static on a 52x56 Cloudcars prop.
> 
> Here are a couple of videos detailing the install.
> 
> First runs without prop: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXIix10Rzmw
> 
> Walk around video of the install: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4NKNy3z4Jg
> 
> Test run at 45" MAP: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bfpNlt3TLE
> 
> Anyway, we will have the KR back in the air in the next week or so.
> Looking forward to getting go fly it again.
> 
> Jeff Lange
> 
> ___
> Search the KRnet Archives at http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search.
> To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave at list.krnet.org
> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
> see http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org to change 
> options

KR> Turbo VW Tests

[Jeff Lange]

Jeff, 

I do have quite a few concerns about a number of things. The crank is a GPAS 
forged unit with the Force 1 prop hub. If any crank can handle the loads I 
think this is my best bet. My biggest concern is the case itself. I may have to 
go with a larger type 4 center bearing or go to something like the aluminum 
Scat "killer case". 

Cooling the power will indeed be a challenge. The water injection will help but 
only testing will tell. 

Right now I am running it like the Revmaster turbos ran, without a waste gate. 
I may have to add one. I have noticed that once the boost is in, it does not 
take much more throttle to get more power. I have considered a throttle stop 
that is hinged to prevent a serious over boost that is deployed during takeoff 
and landing but I'm not sure how that will work out. I have looked at a few 
waste gates but none of them are programable. The would just be set to pop off 
at whatever pressure its set at preventing over boost. 

The ignition is also set up so that if an over boost happens the ignition 
timing drops to 0 but the mag is still firing at 25 degrees BTDC. Again, I am 
going to have to see how it works out. Joe at Revmaster said that the prototype 
KR2S was turbocharged and ran up to 6psi with the timing set at 25 degrees. If 
anyone knows anything about this please let me know!

I did drop the compression from a little over 9:1 to 8:1 by installing larger 
shims under the cylinders. 8:1 is what Joe recommended. Its still higher than 
the 2.5l turbo in my Subaru car, but that is running about 14psi of boost 
(60"). If I recall, its CR is 7.5:1. 

There will be many test flights and inspections along the way. Initially, I'll 
normalize and then slowly work up to more power. The engine will have to be 
torn down next winter to see what the results are. The engine is being torn 
down next month to see what it looks like inside. Its got about 50 hours of 
full throttle operation at over 4000rpm's on it now and I want to see how it's 
held up to that. 

I'm in no big rush since I have the KR to fly. If the Sonerai takes all summer 
I am just going to race the KR at cruise power. 

Thanks!

Jeff Lange

On Mar 25, 2013, at 9:16 AM, "Jeff Scott"  wrote:

> Wow Jeff!  You're making a ton of HP with that.  Any thoughts on the effects 
> of adding 2.5" to the crank length plus running the additional HP?  I have 
> only built one VW based aero engine, but I would question running that kind 
> of HP through the VW crank while multiplying the crank loads with an 
> extension at the same time.  I would think the turbo boost will also degrade 
> the life of the VW heads, which are kind of a weak area for the engine as 
> well, but I'm sure you already know that trade off going in.  The work looks 
> really good and should be a blast to fly.
> 
> Are you set up with a programmable automatic waste gate, or is it set up as a 
> manual waste gate?  The automatic ignition timing using the manifold pressure 
> to help with ignition timing mapping will be a big help with the boost.  I've 
> seen a guy blow up the a turbo Subaru trying to run a manual waste gate.  A 
> quick throttle response to a runway incursion while on short final and 
> suddenly while cursing the plane that cut him off, he found himself with a 
> closed waste gate and a serious over boosted engine and blew it up with 
> detonation before he recognized what was happening.
> 
> I like your approach to the engine and cooling.  Cooling will be the key to 
> longetivy of the heads.  If you can keep the CHTs and Oil temps in the green, 
> you should be good to go.
> 
> What about compression on this engine?  The norm for a turbo boosted engine 
> is to lower the compression.  With the turbo boosting, you don't really have 
> the need for high compression at the same time as you can make up for 
> compression with boost.  Are you running relatively high compression pistons, 
> or have you lowered the compression down to go with the turbo boost? 
> 
> Overall, good job.  It looks great and will undoubtely be a real rocket to 
> fly.
> 
> -Jeff Scott
> Los Alamos, NM
> 

KR> Turbo VW Tests

[James Babcock]

Hi Jeff, a guy named Alvin (Al) Campbell had a sweet little standard KR with a 
2180 VW and a turbocharger back in the late 80's. He was an automotive engineer 
and probably published his data in the print newsletter ih the 80's. Search 
those if there's a way. Or else talk to Dan Diehl, he was Al's sidekick. We 
lost Al in the early nineties. About all I can remember him saying was that on 
takeoff, he had to stay off the throttle so he wouldn't overboost. Part of Al's 
job was monitoring engines on test stands, so it was natural for him to do. 
Obviously, he always flew the engine controls, but was always willing to give a 
ride to all takers in the right seat. He was a huge advocate for the KR.
On a historical note, there was a culture of VW drag racers in SoCal in the 
past, and they along with the dune buggy crowd learned how far you could 
reliably push those engines. IIRC, Revmaster learned from their endeavors, and 
they should know. Have fun!

On Mar 25, 2013, at 9:51 AM, "Jeff Lange"  wrote:

> Jeff, 
> 
> I do have quite a few concerns about a number of things. The crank is a GPAS 
> forged unit with the Force 1 prop hub. If any crank can handle the loads I 
> think this is my best bet. My biggest concern is the case itself. I may have 
> to go with a larger type 4 center bearing or go to something like the 
> aluminum Scat "killer case". 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> Overall, good job.  It looks great and will undoubtely be a real rocket to 
>> fly.
>> 
>> -Jeff Scott
>> Los Alamos, NM
> 
> 
> ___
> Search the KRnet Archives at http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search.
> To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave at list.krnet.org
> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
> see http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org to change 
> options

KR> Turbo VW Tests

[Jeff Scott]

The prototype KR2s Joe is referring to was Roy Marsh's plane, N133RM. ?Last I 
heard, Roy was living in California, although the plane has changed hands a 
couple of times since then. ?Last I knew it was also in California.

Seems to me that Dan Diehl ran a turbo VW in N4DD for a while as well, so may 
have some useful information.

Sounds like you are taking a sound approach with this. ?Congratulations on the 
fine work.

-Jeff Scott
Los Alamos, NM


> - Original Message -
> From: Jeff Lange
> Sent: 03/25/13 08:51 AM
> To: KRnet
> Subject: Re: KR> Turbo VW Tests
> 
> Jeff, 
> 
> I do have quite a few concerns about a number of things. The crank is a GPAS 
> forged unit with the Force 1 prop hub. If any crank can handle the loads I 
> think this is my best bet. My biggest concern is the case itself. I may have 
> to go with a larger type 4 center bearing or go to something like the 
> aluminum Scat "killer case". 
> 
> Cooling the power will indeed be a challenge. The water injection will help 
> but only testing will tell. 
> 
> Right now I am running it like the Revmaster turbos ran, without a waste 
> gate. I may have to add one. I have noticed that once the boost is in, it 
> does not take much more throttle to get more power. I have considered a 
> throttle stop that is hinged to prevent a serious over boost that is deployed 
> during takeoff and landing but I'm not sure how that will work out. I have 
> looked at a few waste gates but none of them are programable. The would just 
> be set to pop off at whatever pressure its set at preventing over boost. 
> 
> The ignition is also set up so that if an over boost happens the ignition 
> timing drops to 0 but the mag is still firing at 25 degrees BTDC. Again, I am 
> going to have to see how it works out. Joe at Revmaster said that the 
> prototype KR2S was turbocharged and ran up to 6psi with the timing set at 25 
> degrees. If anyone knows anything about this please let me know!
> 
> I did drop the compression from a little over 9:1 to 8:1 by installing larger 
> shims under the cylinders. 8:1 is what Joe recommended. Its still higher than 
> the 2.5l turbo in my Subaru car, but that is running about 14psi of boost 
> (60"). If I recall, its CR is 7.5:1. 
> 
> There will be many test flights and inspections along the way. Initially, 
> I'll normalize and then slowly work up to more power. The engine will have to 
> be torn down next winter to see what the results are. The engine is being 
> torn down next month to see what it looks like inside. Its got about 50 hours 
> of full throttle operation at over 4000rpm's on it now and I want to see how 
> it's held up to that. 
> 
> I'm in no big rush since I have the KR to fly. If the Sonerai takes all 
> summer I am just going to race the KR at cruise power. 
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Jeff Lange
> 

KR> Turbo VW Tests

[Jeff Lange]

Jeff, 

I called Dan Diehl and he was kind enough to chat with me for 10 minutes or so. 

The issue he had with the motor was aftermarket head studs. He would use 35" 
for takeoff, 28" in cruise and had run it up to 50" for short bursts. After 
putting OEM 8mm studs on it, he did not have another problem. 

Thanks for the tip!

Jeff Lange

On Mar 25, 2013, at 12:58 PM, "Jeff Scott"  wrote:

> The prototype KR2s Joe is referring to was Roy Marsh's plane, N133RM.  Last I 
> heard, Roy was living in California, although the plane has changed hands a 
> couple of times since then.  Last I knew it was also in California.
> 
> Seems to me that Dan Diehl ran a turbo VW in N4DD for a while as well, so may 
> have some useful information.
> 
> Sounds like you are taking a sound approach with this.  Congratulations on 
> the fine work.
> 
> -Jeff Scott
> Los Alamos, NM

KR> Turbo VW Tests

[Jeff York]

I am very impressed.
?
?



 From: J L 
To: krnet at list.krnet.org 
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 8:36 PM
Subject: KR> Turbo VW Tests

Gents,

Kind of indirectly related to the KR, but it shares the same power
plant in many cases.

I bought a Revmaster turbo kit from them and adapted it to my Sonerai.
With the same prop and engine I saw 2900rpm static in the past. With
the turbo I am getting 3500rpm static on a 52x56 Cloudcars prop.

Here are a couple of videos detailing the install.

First runs without prop: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXIix10Rzmw

Walk around video of the install: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4NKNy3z4Jg

Test run at 45" MAP: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bfpNlt3TLE

Anyway, we will have the KR back in the air in the next week or so.
Looking forward to getting go fly it again.

Jeff Lange

___
Search the KRnet Archives at http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search.
To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave at list.krnet.org
please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
see http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org to change 
options

KR>Turbo-Diesel kitplane

[Serge F. Vidal]

I did some extra research. The Dieselis is not yet marketed as a kitplane,
but kit development is well under way in the Netherlands, under the name
"RangeR".

Maybe they will sell the engine separately one day?

Here is the link.

http://www.dac-ranger.nl/engsite/enstart.html

Serge Vidal
KR2 ZS-WEC
Tunis, Tunisia

KR> Turbo KR operators

[Orma]

Hello Net

As I requested yesterday, I would also like to hear from all operators that 
have a homebuilt plane with a Volkswagen with a turbo.  I want to know how you 
use and or control the boost in your plane. 

Orma
Southfield, MI
N110LR celebrating 20 years
To the gathering or bust

KR> Turbo KR operators

[Ron Eason]

I am using a Blowoff valve on the inlet manifold [compressor side] and a
manual wastegate on the turbo side. Most modern turbo engines use protection
like this for over when the load on the engine changes rapidly. [prop
unloads, throttle changes and etc.]. I will have some photo when I finish
the assembly.

KRron

- Original Message - 
From: "Orma" 
To: "KRnet" 
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 7:36 PM
Subject: KR> Turbo KR operators


> Hello Net
>
> As I requested yesterday, I would also like to hear from all operators
that have a homebuilt plane with a Volkswagen with a turbo.  I want to know
how you use and or control the boost in your plane.
>
> Orma
> Southfield, MI
> N110LR celebrating 20 years
> To the gathering or bust
>
>
> ___
> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
>
>

KR> Turbo KR operators

[Ron Eason]

- Original Message - 
From: "Ron Eason" 
To: "KRnet" 
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 8:18 PM
Subject: Re: KR> Turbo KR operators


> I am using a Blowoff valve on the inlet manifold [compressor side] and a
> manual wastegate on the turbo side. Most modern turbo engines use
protection
> like this for overboost  when the load on the engine changes rapidly.
[prop
> unloads, throttle changes and etc.]. I will have some photo when I finish
> the assembly.
>
> KRron
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Orma" 
> To: "KRnet" 
> Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 7:36 PM
> Subject: KR> Turbo KR operators
>
>
> > Hello Net
> >
> > As I requested yesterday, I would also like to hear from all operators
> that have a homebuilt plane with a Volkswagen with a turbo.  I want to
know
> how you use and or control the boost in your plane.
> >
> > Orma
> > Southfield, MI
> > N110LR celebrating 20 years
> > To the gathering or bust
> >
> >
> > ___
> > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
> > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ___
> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
>
>

KR> Turbo KR operators

[Rich Seifert]

Orma
I've only seen a few Turb installations besides my own and they have all
been the same as mine.  I use a draw through system and control boost by
throttle alone.  The turbo must be properly sized to be effective.  I have
560 hours on my installation and would not bother with other methods unless
you plan to let a lot of inexperianced pilots fly your machine.  Blowoff
systems would be my last choice because of the danger of fire.
It works for me!

- Original Message -
From: "Orma" 
To: "KRnet" 
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 5:36 PM
Subject: KR> Turbo KR operators


Hello Net

As I requested yesterday, I would also like to hear from all operators that
have a homebuilt plane with a Volkswagen with a turbo.  I want to know how
you use and or control the boost in your plane.

Orma
Southfield, MI
N110LR celebrating 20 years
To the gathering or bust

KR> Turbo KR operators

[Orma]

" I've only seen a few "

Thanks Rich for the response.  I apologize in advance for asking so many
questions.
Can you describe your system.  Are you saying that you have no waste gate??
Are you flying a Revmaster 2100D??  Do you have a manifold pressure gauge or
Boost gauge.  What do you get for pressure at takeoff.  I'm getting about
2.5 PSI with my gate open and I have only accomplished one run with the gate
closed.  No matter how well my engine runs, I seem to have trouble getting
it to go faster then 3100 on the ground.  From past experience I know that I
may get 200 more in the air, but I want to see 3600 on the tach, to know
that I can reach full HP.  I'm using a Revflow carb and wonder if the 34 mm
venturi might be holding me back.  What size carb do you run and what is
your max RPM.  With the draw through system does the turbo draw enough fuel
to keep it from being lien and allow you to control mixture just as a normal
engine would.

Orma
Southfield, MI
N110LR celebrating 20 years
To the gathering or bust

KR> Turbo KR operators

[Ron Eason]

Blowoff systems are commonly used on fuel injected systems.  Some blowoff 
valves recycle the discharge to the intake however.

KRron

- Original Message - 
From: "Rich Seifert" 
To: "KRnet" 
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 10:19 PM
Subject: Re: KR> Turbo KR operators


> Orma
>I've only seen a few Turb installations besides my own and they have 
> all
> been the same as mine.  I use a draw through system and control boost by
> throttle alone.  The turbo must be properly sized to be effective.  I have
> 560 hours on my installation and would not bother with other methods 
> unless
> you plan to let a lot of inexperianced pilots fly your machine.  Blowoff
> systems would be my last choice because of the danger of fire.
> It works for me!
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Orma" 
> To: "KRnet" 
> Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 5:36 PM
> Subject: KR> Turbo KR operators
>
>
> Hello Net
>
> As I requested yesterday, I would also like to hear from all operators 
> that
> have a homebuilt plane with a Volkswagen with a turbo.  I want to know how
> you use and or control the boost in your plane.
>
> Orma
> Southfield, MI
> N110LR celebrating 20 years
> To the gathering or bust
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
>
> 

KR> Turbo KR operators

[tncompressor...@aol.com]

In a message dated 8/28/04 8:46:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
o...@aviation-mechanics.com writes:


> I'm using a Revflow carb and wonder if the 34 mm
> venturi might be holding me back.  

Orma,

Been giving a little thought to your  turbo installation.  Seems to me you 
should be getting more boost.  Is the wastegate manual or automatically 
controlled?  I think using throttle position to control MP and the wastegate 
only as a 
safety to prevent overboost might be the answer.  If achieving the right 
amount of boost is a problem, I would look into a rich mixture problem (lower 
exhaust temp causes less expansion of the exhaust gases therfore lower rpms of 
the 
turbine buckets).  
The turbo could be sized for a car application, and boost may not come in 
until 4500 rpm or so.  you could be experiencing compressor blade stall (surge) 
but would probably see an eratic manifold pressure.  Hope you get the bugs 
worked out!!

Best wishes

Riley Collins
Rutledge, TN

KR> Turbo KR operators

[Orma]

"The turbo could be sized for a car application,"

Exactly the turbo is from a car application.  The amount of boost is
actually ok for the present time.  I have seen 35 on the MP gauge and feel
that I can tweak the tuning of the engine a bit more.  If I'm now working
your number correctly, all I want is about a total "hg increase of from
25"hg to a max of "40hg which is roughly 7 PSI.  Mixture has and is an open
issue with the Revflow.  With each engine run I'm adjusting the settings, or
shaving the needle a little to enriched the mixture at WOT.  I think one
more shave will get me to rich at WOT.  Once I determine the needle
dimensions at WOT, I will start to carve a smaller needle so that I can have
better mixture control at mid range without having to make such large
adjustment to the mixture lever(fuel shutoff) every time I change the
throttle setting.  I'm also working on the CHT cooling,  by reworking the
baffles.  Even with a lot of gaping holes in the baffles, I was able to make
a 7 minute max power run and not go into the red.  I still have 4 of 5
baffle tasks to be completed.  I still need some more welding to the intake
system, but for now rubber connectors and clamps secure the system.  I plan
to connect the control for the waste gate today or tomorrow.  If my waste
gate control works as planned, I don't see any stoppers to prevent me from
getting airborne by next weekend.  That's not to say that don't still have a
lot to do.  My current list has about 30 items open, and as I close one or
two, I find from one to three to replace the one's that complete.
Orma
Southfield, MI
N110LR celebrating 20 years
To the gathering or bust

KR> Turbo KR operators

[Orma]

"I am using gravity feed fuel supply which would be more suseptable to
leaning than a constant pressure system."

Thanks Rich for that tid bit of info.  This is exactly where I am at today.
My run today was great.  After Marks great inspection yesterday, I got
determined to solve my power problems, so I sat thinking of how to enrich my
Revflow without adding a fuel pump.  I came to the conclusion that the gas
was not coming out of the carb.  I reasoned that the straight taper cut of
the revflow needle was not going to feed the engine at WOT and at
idle/midrange.  I decided to create a WOT step down over the last half an
inch or so.  I went to the hanger early 8AM and ground the step and put it
back in the Revflow.  Presto, 3500 RPM and 40 MP.  Though I have tremendous
power now, I feel that the engine is at minimum running Peek EGT, and not
rich of peek as I would like to see.  Well, 3500 and 40 is more then I want
static and now I can finally use some of the variable pitch in the IVO prop.
Before I repitch the prop, I need to know if any one with a turbo with a
controllable waste gate is making enough power to need the gate and what
will happen as the altitude goes up.  Tomorrow it's back to fixing the
things on the list and trying to find a good vernier cable locally.
Orma
Southfield, MI
N110LR celebrating 20 years
To the gathering with the KR or bust

KR> Turbo KR operators

[larry severson]

>
>Presto, 3500 RPM and 40 MP.

Joe Horwath of Revmaster says that the engine can go to 40" manifold, but 
engine repair will follow soon. He said, "Emergency use to save your plane 
only."
3200RPM and 34" of manifold on take-off only will translate to maximum 
engine life.


Larry Severson
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
(714) 968-9852
lar...@socal.rr.com 

KR> turbo pressure vs altitude

[Jaco Swanepoel]

HI Guys,
Can anyone please let me know how to calculate the max boost pressure at 
different altitudes.
I have a VW 2L engine with a rajay turbo.
Thanks,
Jaco Swanepoel
South Africa


-
Do you Yahoo!?
 Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.

KR> turbo pressure vs altitude

[Orma]

Hello Jaco
I'm not sure that I have the complete answer that you are looking for.  As 
for calculating the maximum boost at altitude, it's not necessary, because 
you will loose boost pressure as you go up.  In short the maximum boost 
pressure on the ground is the same maximum pressure at altitude.  For 
example during takeoff I monitor my manifold pressure gauge to ensure that I 
limit my maximum boost to 35"hg.  I have a manual waste gate that I use to 
keep the manifold pressure at the desired level.  As I climb to altitude, I 
can eventually completely close the waste gate with no fear that I will over 
boost the engine.  I did find this web site that is about WWII 
turbosupercharged engines. 
http://rwebs.net/avhistory/opsman/geturbo/geturbo.htm What I gather from 
reading it is that at sea level you can reach and exceed your maximum 
recommend boost pressure(requiring the use of a waste gate).   As altitude 
goes up, the turbo or supercharger looses it's ability to produce as much 
boost pressure as it did on the ground.  At some given point the turbo will 
reach it's limit and no longer provide enough boosted pressure to keep the 
engine running with enough power to maintain level flight.

Orma
Southfield, MI
N110LR Tweety, old enough to drink this year
Flying and more flying, to the gathering or bust
http://www.kr-2.aviation-mechanics.com/

KR> Turbo vs NA - fuel efficiency

[Andy Mckevitz]

I've enjoyed the posts.  This is my .02 when it comes
to cost-benefit and efficiency. 

   

It occurred to me one day when I had the choice of flying
east one beautiful day when I had no wind up to 15k' [okay, maybe 3kts] for a
200nm trip in my C-150.  No one ever taught what altitude to fly for best
efficiency, government this, regs that, etc...  What was the best alt from
gnd-effect [not possible for the obvious terrain changes] to 15k'?  Yes,
my 150 would make it!  Whats the best fuel consumption altitude?  I
won't address speed for this particular post as it?s a fine line to opening up
different discussion altogether.  I'll just post you what I have done as
it helps answer to turbo, or not to turbo.   

I have access to a few planes POH's:  my C-150, a twin
comanche, a turbo twin comanche [normalized only], C-210 [turbo >35in
single], and a good ole gas-drunk piper apache! 

   

I felt  crazy plotting these data because no one can
answer my question as to what alt. and speed to fly at to earn the most MPG in
a no wind environment and explain why.  Is climbing for the TAS benefit
worth it?  in short, no.  Turbo is closer to fuel saving however, and
this surprised me. 

   

Over the next probably 20hrs of flight planning scenarios
[excited new pilot has this energy], I planned my own trip I faced that day
with each plane, and again for flights at 1k,3k, up to ceiling, and svc.
ceiling.  Parabolic ascents, descents, jet-type ascent/descent profiles,
etc.  After that, I planned full fuel tank burn for each plane.
 Aside from the predicted ground effect winning efficiency in all cases, I
found its best to stay as low as possible because the fuel spent climbing does
not earn its keep for the TAS payoff when climbing to altitude for a no wind
condition.  I tried different climb speeds, etc to cover all angles. 
I learned much in the process.  Two upsets though:  The turbo planes
[both normalized and boosted] climbing to their high cruise altitude provided
to be equally efficient as the NA planes that didn't climb.  They were in
turn faster in the process as well.  the turbo's payoff occurs when the
tanks are fully used because its more time spent at altitude benefiting from
the TAS gain.  Now does fuel price offset the price of the turbo? 
That depends on how much the pilots time is worth.  

   

My opinion, is that the cost of the turbo, certified and
experimental application is not worth the benefit regarding effieciency. 
On the other hand, if you live on an ocean island would you want a turbo? 
What if you lived in the Rocky mountains?  Envrionment and safety can
persuade otherwise and other people have posted positives and negatives I won't
repeat here.  At Oshkosh last year, I talked to a guy named Jer from
Colorado in the Cessna Pilots Assoc. I flew in with that is a CFII, and
specializes in mountain flying instruction.  If you look him up, you
didn't hear he was an 'old guy' from me :)  He also does not desire turbos
and this lead to an interesting conversation of mountain flying in normally
aspirated planes because I'm near the smoky mountains.  Contact me and
I'll flip you his email from his biz card if you care to share a conversation
like I did. 

   

My twin turbo Nissan 300zx is just an experience everyone
should enjoy.  I do like turbos.  They are fun!  I like the
power if the engine can withstand it like the car can.  Having a turbo on
a twin and losing an engine in Idaho is better than crashing because single
engine performance is not what the poh says when you need it most.  Seeing
a kr with a turbo definitely is sophisticated, complicated and something to
be proud of because it does have its element to once again, outperform a
certified plane in all regimes.  Cost-benefit?  eh, when it all comes
down to it, as an airport manager, I see too many obstacles to general aviation
to warrant making a plane that takes great sunset pictures endure less flying
time because a more complex system requires more maintenance and threatens the
pilot with added cost and time.   

   

Get em flying! 

Andy  

KR> Turbo vs NA - fuel efficiency

[Larry Knox]

Andy, I printed and filed this information. It is a great research paper and 
has a value to a lot of people. Thanks, la...@lebanair.com 

-Original Message-
From: krnet-bounces+larry=lebanair@mylist.net 
[mailto:krnet-bounces+larry=lebanair@mylist.net] On Behalf Of Andy Mckevitz
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 7:11 AM
To: kr...@mylist.net
Subject: KR> Turbo vs NA - fuel efficiency

I've enjoyed the posts.  This is my .02 when it comes
to cost-benefit and efficiency. 



It occurred to me one day when I had the choice of flying
east one beautiful day when I had no wind up to 15k' [okay, maybe 3kts] for a
200nm trip in my C-150.  No one ever taught what altitude to fly for best
efficiency, government this, regs that, etc...  What was the best alt from
gnd-effect [not possible for the obvious terrain changes] to 15k'?  Yes,
my 150 would make it!  Whats the best fuel consumption altitude?  I
won't address speed for this particular post as it?s a fine line to opening up
different discussion altogether.  I'll just post you what I have done as
it helps answer to turbo, or not to turbo.   

I have access to a few planes POH's:  my C-150, a twin
comanche, a turbo twin comanche [normalized only], C-210 [turbo >35in
single], and a good ole gas-drunk piper apache! 



I felt  crazy plotting these data because no one can
answer my question as to what alt. and speed to fly at to earn the most MPG in
a no wind environment and explain why.  Is climbing for the TAS benefit
worth it?  in short, no.  Turbo is closer to fuel saving however, and
this surprised me. 



Over the next probably 20hrs of flight planning scenarios
[excited new pilot has this energy], I planned my own trip I faced that day
with each plane, and again for flights at 1k,3k, up to ceiling, and svc.
ceiling.  Parabolic ascents, descents, jet-type ascent/descent profiles,
etc.  After that, I planned full fuel tank burn for each plane.
 Aside from the predicted ground effect winning efficiency in all cases, I
found its best to stay as low as possible because the fuel spent climbing does
not earn its keep for the TAS payoff when climbing to altitude for a no wind
condition.  I tried different climb speeds, etc to cover all angles. 
I learned much in the process.  Two upsets though:  The turbo planes
[both normalized and boosted] climbing to their high cruise altitude provided
to be equally efficient as the NA planes that didn't climb.  They were in
turn faster in the process as well.  the turbo's payoff occurs when the
tanks are fully used because its more time spent at altitude benefiting from
the TAS gain.  Now does fuel price offset the price of the turbo? 
That depends on how much the pilots time is worth.  



My opinion, is that the cost of the turbo, certified and
experimental application is not worth the benefit regarding effieciency. 
On the other hand, if you live on an ocean island would you want a turbo? 
What if you lived in the Rocky mountains?  Envrionment and safety can
persuade otherwise and other people have posted positives and negatives I won't
repeat here.  At Oshkosh last year, I talked to a guy named Jer from
Colorado in the Cessna Pilots Assoc. I flew in with that is a CFII, and
specializes in mountain flying instruction.  If you look him up, you
didn't hear he was an 'old guy' from me :)  He also does not desire turbos
and this lead to an interesting conversation of mountain flying in normally
aspirated planes because I'm near the smoky mountains.  Contact me and
I'll flip you his email from his biz card if you care to share a conversation
like I did. 



My twin turbo Nissan 300zx is just an experience everyone
should enjoy.  I do like turbos.  They are fun!  I like the
power if the engine can withstand it like the car can.  Having a turbo on
a twin and losing an engine in Idaho is better than crashing because single
engine performance is not what the poh says when you need it most.  Seeing
a kr with a turbo definitely is sophisticated, complicated and something to
be proud of because it does have its element to once again, outperform a
certified plane in all regimes.  Cost-benefit?  eh, when it all comes
down to it, as an airport manager, I see too many obstacles to general aviation
to warrant making a plane that takes great sunset pictures endure less flying
time because a more complex system requires more maintenance and threatens the
pilot with added cost and time.   



Get em flying! 

Andy  



___
Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html

KR> Turbo vs NA - fuel efficiency

[Andy Mckevitz]

I posted this last week when the topic was active and never saw it.  If I 
missed it, forgive this space please!


I've enjoyed the posts.  This is my .02 when it comes to cost-benefit and 
efficiency.


It occurred to me one day when I had the choice of flying east one beautiful 
day when I had no wind up to 15k' [okay, maybe 3kts] for a 200nm trip in my 
C-150.  No one ever taught what altitude to fly for best efficiency, government 
this, regs that, etc...  What was the best alt from gnd-effect [not possible 
for the obvious terrain changes] to 15k'?  Yes, my 150 would make it!  Whats 
the best fuel consumption altitude?  I won't address speed for this particular 
post as it?s a fine line to opening up different discussion altogether.  I'll 
just post you what I have done as it helps answer to turbo, or not to turbo. 

I have access to a few planes POH's:  my C-150, a twin comanche, a turbo twin 
comanche [normalized only], C-210 [turbo >35in single], and a good ole 
gas-drunk piper apache!

I felt crazy plotting these data because no one has yet answered my question as 
to what alt. and speed to fly at to earn the most MPG in a no wind environment 
and explain why.  Is climbing for the TAS benefit worth it?  in short, no.  
Turbo is closer to fuel saving however, and this surprised me.

Over the next probably 20hrs of flight planning scenarios [an excited new pilot 
has this energy], I planned my own trip I faced that day with each plane, and 
again for flights at 1k,3k, up to ceiling, and svc. ceiling.  Parabolic 
ascents, descents, jet-type ascent/descent profiles, etc.  After that, I 
planned full fuel tank burn for each plane.  Aside from the predicted ground 
effect winning efficiency in all cases, I found its best to stay as low as 
possible because the fuel spent climbing does not earn its keep for the TAS 
payoff when climbing to altitude for a no wind condition.  I tried different 
climb speeds, etc to cover all angles.  I learned much in the process.  Two 
upsets though:  The turbo planes [both normalized and boosted] climbing to 
their high cruise altitude provided to be equally efficient as the NA planes 
that didn't climb.  They were in turn faster in the process as well.  the 
turbo's payoff occurs when the tanks are fully used
 because its more time spent at altitude benefiting from the TAS gain.  Now 
does fuel price offset the price of the turbo?  That depends on how much the 
pilots time is worth.

My opinion, is that the cost of the turbo, certified and experimental 
application is not worth the benefit regarding effieciency.  On the other hand, 
if you live on an ocean island would you want a turbo?  What if you lived in 
the Rocky mountains?  Environment and safety can persuade otherwise and other 
people have posted positives and negatives I won't repeat here.  At Oshkosh 
last year, I talked to a guy named Jer from Colorado in the Cessna Pilots 
Assoc. I flew in with that is a CFII, and specializes in mountain flying 
instruction.  If you look him up, you didn't hear he was an 'old guy' from me 
:)  He also does not desire turbos and this lead to an interesting conversation 
of mountain flying in normally aspirated planes.  Contact me and I'll flip you 
his email from his biz card if you care to share a conversation like I did.

My twin turbo Nissan 300zx is just an experience everyone should enjoy.  I do 
like turbos.  They are fun!  I like the power if the engine can withstand it 
like the car can.  Having a turbo on a twin and losing an engine in Idaho is 
better than crashing because single engine performance is not what the poh says 
when you need it most.  Seeing a kr with a turbo definitely seems 
sophisticated, complicated and something to be proud of because it does have 
its element to once again, outperform a certified plane in all regimes.  
Cost-benefit?  eh, when it all comes down to it, as an airport manager, I see 
too many obstacles to general aviation to warrant making a plane that takes 
great sunset pictures endure less flying time because a more complex system 
requires more maintenance and threatens the pilot/owner with added cost and 
time. 


Get em flying!

Andy 

KR> turbo vw rayjay info sought...

[John Gotschall via KRnet]

Hi,

So whilst 15 years younger I bought a kr2 project and a new 2180vw
conversion from Steve at Great Plains.  I told him I would be turbocharging
it.

I found used revmaster turbo manifolds, a rayjay turvocharger, and used
dual revmaster oil pump.

I got it all together and ran it a buncha times.  Oil pressure was always
40 to 60 psi, all good, right?

Along the way I noticed my dual 4 gear oil pump had common input and output
galleries, so really was not two pumps, but rather a single double capacity
pump.

Also I noticed a lot of soot dots, very small from the exhaust making the
airplane oily, sooty.

And while cooling down the turbocharger, makes popcorn noise.  Odd

Additionally I found all references to this setup use the two pumps
completely separately, so have decided to go that route.

Anyway I ordered a new dual pump to separate the two, now I am wondering
who knows these ray jay turbochargers? Disassembly, inspection, repair?

I am thinking I should check it out...


Any Ray Jay guys here?


thanks

jg
___
Search the KRnet Archives at https://www.mail-archive.com/krnet@list.krnet.org/.
Please see LIST RULES and KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html.
see http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org to change 
options.
To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@list.krnet.org

Re: KR> turbo vw rayjay info sought...

[schmleff via KRnet]

John, 

I have a Rayjay on my VW. 

I do not know how the Revmaster pump is plumbed, but I am running a converted 
CB Performance pump. Video can be found here - https://youtu.be/y9lZKKz5rPc 


Concerning the oil spitting, are you running a restrictor in the oil feed line 
to the turbo? If not you will likely need one. I believe the opening in mine is 
.04. Even then, until the turbos seals are warm I get a little oil spitting out 
of the exhaust. Mine could stand to be a little smaller I suspect. 

I get no popping sounds on cool down. 

Clarks Corviar has parts for these turbos. 

Here are two reference links that I have found useful. 

Corvair Rajay Turbocharger - Primer II - Generational Differences.pdf 


Corvair Rajay Turbocharger Primer.pdf 


Hope that helps!

Jeff Lange
Race 64 - Skye Racer
Blog: http://schmleff.blogspot.com
Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/schmleff



> On Feb 17, 2021, at 10:04 PM, John Gotschall via KRnet  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> So whilst 15 years younger I bought a kr2 project and a new 2180vw
> conversion from Steve at Great Plains.  I told him I would be turbocharging
> it.
> 
> I found used revmaster turbo manifolds, a rayjay turvocharger, and used
> dual revmaster oil pump.
> 
> I got it all together and ran it a buncha times.  Oil pressure was always
> 40 to 60 psi, all good, right?
> 
> Along the way I noticed my dual 4 gear oil pump had common input and output
> galleries, so really was not two pumps, but rather a single double capacity
> pump.
> 
> Also I noticed a lot of soot dots, very small from the exhaust making the
> airplane oily, sooty.
> 
> And while cooling down the turbocharger, makes popcorn noise.  Odd
> 
> Additionally I found all references to this setup use the two pumps
> completely separately, so have decided to go that route.
> 
> Anyway I ordered a new dual pump to separate the two, now I am wondering
> who knows these ray jay turbochargers? Disassembly, inspection, repair?
> 
> I am thinking I should check it out...
> 
> 
> Any Ray Jay guys here?
> 
> 
> thanks
> 
> jg
> 

___
Search the KRnet Archives at https://www.mail-archive.com/krnet@list.krnet.org/.
Please see LIST RULES and KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html.
see http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org to change 
options.
To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@list.krnet.org

KR> Turbo to maintain Sealevel intake manifold pressure

[John]

I just made a deposit on  a new long block 2180 for
my KR2.

I am in the Seattle area and virtualy surrounded by mountains.

I have only 150 hours PIC, but in a pretty wide variety of
craft (C-150, Musketeer, C-172, Champ, C-120,
C-150 Long range, beech 1900 etc...  All of them seem (except the 1900)
to run out of "guts" at about 9K feet.  I can't remember ever making 10k
feet, they all were naturally aspirated.  Going over a 4k to 6k mountain
range just to leave town leaves me wanting to clear those "Don't land
here" speed bumps by oh, say, 5k or 6k ft.  Can't get there from
"naturally aspirated" here.  

I am not a speed or performance demon. I fly like I drive:
sort of slow and methodical.  But I want to clear those rocks
(and the bigger ones east of there) by a wider margin.

So,, I want a turbo charger.  I can find one, but I have not been able
to find a controller for the waste gate that will limit the intake
manifold pressure to 29.92 inches of mercury.  Or I suppose 
open the waste gate at 3700 rpm.

Any ideas?

Thanks

jg

KR> Turbo to maintain Sealevel intake manifold pressure

[D Lively]

John:

I would say that your proposed use of a turbo charger is its best use but 
personally have flown C-172s to 13,000 & C-182s  to over 15000'  for short 
periods but view 12,500 ft about the limit for sustained operation by a 
non-smoking pilot or passenger without Oxygen.  I believe the craft you site 
all have service cielings in the 14000 area anyway.  Beware of over-boosting as 
it can be  hard on engines and shorten their life.

Having been in and out of Prescott AZ several times as well as high density 
altitude conditions in the Calif. Central Valley and those of the CA deserts I 
can understand your position very well.

Don Lively



- Original Message - 
From: "John" 
To: "KRnet" 
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 9:11 PM
Subject: KR> Turbo to maintain Sealevel intake manifold pressure


> 
> 
> I just made a deposit on  a new long block 2180 for
> my KR2.
> 
> I am in the Seattle area and virtualy surrounded by mountains.
> 
> I have only 150 hours PIC, but in a pretty wide variety of
> craft (C-150, Musketeer, C-172, Champ, C-120,
> C-150 Long range, beech 1900 etc...  All of them seem (except the 1900)
> to run out of "guts" at about 9K feet.  I can't remember ever making 10k
> feet, they all were naturally aspirated.  Going over a 4k to 6k mountain
> range just to leave town leaves me wanting to clear those "Don't land
> here" speed bumps by oh, say, 5k or 6k ft.  Can't get there from
> "naturally aspirated" here.  
> 
> I am not a speed or performance demon. I fly like I drive:
> sort of slow and methodical.  But I want to clear those rocks
> (and the bigger ones east of there) by a wider margin.
> 
> So,, I want a turbo charger.  I can find one, but I have not been able
> to find a controller for the waste gate that will limit the intake
> manifold pressure to 29.92 inches of mercury.  Or I suppose 
> open the waste gate at 3700 rpm.
> 
> Any ideas?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> jg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
> Post photos, introductions, and For Sale items to 
> http://www.kr2forum.com/phpBB2/index.php
> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
>

KR> Turbo to maintain Sealevel intake manifold pressure

[John]

Hi,

I forgot the piper 180 that took 2 hours to climb to 8k feet in the 
downhill (read downwind) side of a mountain range.

I have never gotten anything naturally aspirated to 10k.  Perhaps
I did not have the time to wait (or the distance)..

jg 

Gotta get high fast..








On Sun, 2007-06-03 at 21:42 -0500, D Lively wrote:
> John:
> 
> I would say that your proposed use of a turbo charger is its best use but 
> personally have flown C-172s to 13,000 & C-182s  to over 15000'  for short 
> periods but view 12,500 ft about the limit for sustained operation by a 
> non-smoking pilot or passenger without Oxygen.  I believe the craft you site 
> all have service cielings in the 14000 area anyway.  Beware of over-boosting 
> as it can be  hard on engines and shorten their life.
> 
> Having been in and out of Prescott AZ several times as well as high density 
> altitude conditions in the Calif. Central Valley and those of the CA deserts 
> I can understand your position very well.
> 
> Don Lively
> 
> 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "John" 
> To: "KRnet" 
> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 9:11 PM
> Subject: KR> Turbo to maintain Sealevel intake manifold pressure
> 
> 
> > 
> > 
> > I just made a deposit on  a new long block 2180 for
> > my KR2.
> > 
> > I am in the Seattle area and virtualy surrounded by mountains.
> > 
> > I have only 150 hours PIC, but in a pretty wide variety of
> > craft (C-150, Musketeer, C-172, Champ, C-120,
> > C-150 Long range, beech 1900 etc...  All of them seem (except the 1900)
> > to run out of "guts" at about 9K feet.  I can't remember ever making 10k
> > feet, they all were naturally aspirated.  Going over a 4k to 6k mountain
> > range just to leave town leaves me wanting to clear those "Don't land
> > here" speed bumps by oh, say, 5k or 6k ft.  Can't get there from
> > "naturally aspirated" here.  
> > 
> > I am not a speed or performance demon. I fly like I drive:
> > sort of slow and methodical.  But I want to clear those rocks
> > (and the bigger ones east of there) by a wider margin.
> > 
> > So,, I want a turbo charger.  I can find one, but I have not been able
> > to find a controller for the waste gate that will limit the intake
> > manifold pressure to 29.92 inches of mercury.  Or I suppose 
> > open the waste gate at 3700 rpm.
> > 
> > Any ideas?
> > 
> > Thanks
> > 
> > jg
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ___
> > Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
> > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
> > Post photos, introductions, and For Sale items to 
> > http://www.kr2forum.com/phpBB2/index.php
> > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
> >
> ___
> Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
> Post photos, introductions, and For Sale items to 
> http://www.kr2forum.com/phpBB2/index.php
> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html

KR> Turbo to maintain Sealevel intake manifold pressure

[D Lively]

John:

On the down wind side of the mountain you will have very strong headwinds 
because the air is accelerated to very much higher as it rises(Bernoulli 
Effect) and then will take a while to slow down as the ground falls away all 
the while giving you a major down draft to fight as well.  When ever I flew 
from So. CA to IL I would cross the ridge between Las Vegas & Santa Fe NM at 
either 11,500 ft or 12,500 ft but if I had to stop in either place I would stop 
after crossing the ridge in my direction of travel because both were tucked in 
so close to the ridge.  Mountain flying techniques are quite strongly stressed 
when you lear tto fly out west for the very reasons you have mentioned.  It is 
easy to get into situations with small craft that are difficult to get out of.

Don




- Original Message - 
From: "John" 
To: "KRnet" 
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 11:33 PM
Subject: Re: KR> Turbo to maintain Sealevel intake manifold pressure


> Hi,
> 
> I forgot the piper 180 that took 2 hours to climb to 8k feet in the 
> downhill (read downwind) side of a mountain range.
> 
> I have never gotten anything naturally aspirated to 10k.  Perhaps
> I did not have the time to wait (or the distance)..
> 
> jg 
> 
> Gotta get high fast..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, 2007-06-03 at 21:42 -0500, D Lively wrote:
>> John:
>> 
>> I would say that your proposed use of a turbo charger is its best use but 
>> personally have flown C-172s to 13,000 & C-182s  to over 15000'  for short 
>> periods but view 12,500 ft about the limit for sustained operation by a 
>> non-smoking pilot or passenger without Oxygen.  I believe the craft you site 
>> all have service cielings in the 14000 area anyway.  Beware of over-boosting 
>> as it can be  hard on engines and shorten their life.
>> 
>> Having been in and out of Prescott AZ several times as well as high density 
>> altitude conditions in the Calif. Central Valley and those of the CA deserts 
>> I can understand your position very well.
>> 
>> Don Lively
>> --------
>> 
>> 
>> - Original Message - 
>> From: "John" 
>> To: "KRnet" 
>> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 9:11 PM
>> Subject: KR> Turbo to maintain Sealevel intake manifold pressure
>> 
>> 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > I just made a deposit on  a new long block 2180 for
>> > my KR2.
>> > 
>> > I am in the Seattle area and virtualy surrounded by mountains.
>> > 
>> > I have only 150 hours PIC, but in a pretty wide variety of
>> > craft (C-150, Musketeer, C-172, Champ, C-120,
>> > C-150 Long range, beech 1900 etc...  All of them seem (except the 1900)
>> > to run out of "guts" at about 9K feet.  I can't remember ever making 10k
>> > feet, they all were naturally aspirated.  Going over a 4k to 6k mountain
>> > range just to leave town leaves me wanting to clear those "Don't land
>> > here" speed bumps by oh, say, 5k or 6k ft.  Can't get there from
>> > "naturally aspirated" here.  
>> > 
>> > I am not a speed or performance demon. I fly like I drive:
>> > sort of slow and methodical.  But I want to clear those rocks
>> > (and the bigger ones east of there) by a wider margin.
>> > 
>> > So,, I want a turbo charger.  I can find one, but I have not been able
>> > to find a controller for the waste gate that will limit the intake
>> > manifold pressure to 29.92 inches of mercury.  Or I suppose 
>> > open the waste gate at 3700 rpm.
>> > 
>> > Any ideas?
>> > 
>> > Thanks
>> > 
>> > jg
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > ___
>> > Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
>> > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
>> > Post photos, introductions, and For Sale items to 
>> > http://www.kr2forum.com/phpBB2/index.php
>> > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
>> >
>> ___
>> Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
>> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
>> Post photos, introductions, and For Sale items to 
>> http://www.kr2forum.com/phpBB2/index.php
>> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
> 
> 
> ___
> Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
> Post photos, introductions, and For Sale items to 
> http://www.kr2forum.com/phpBB2/index.php
> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
>

KR> Turbo to maintain Sealevel intake manifold pressure

[J L]

Used to fly a comanche 250 over 10k all the time.

J


On 6/3/07, John  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I forgot the piper 180 that took 2 hours to climb to 8k feet in the
> downhill (read downwind) side of a mountain range.
>
> I have never gotten anything naturally aspirated to 10k.  Perhaps
> I did not have the time to wait (or the distance)..
>
> jg
>
> Gotta get high fast..
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, 2007-06-03 at 21:42 -0500, D Lively wrote:
> > John:
> >
> > I would say that your proposed use of a turbo charger is its best use but 
> > personally have flown C-172s to 13,000 & C-182s  to over 15000'  for short 
> > periods but view 12,500 ft about the limit for sustained operation by a 
> > non-smoking pilot or passenger without Oxygen.  I believe the craft you 
> > site all have service cielings in the 14000 area anyway.  Beware of 
> > over-boosting as it can be  hard on engines and shorten their life.
> >
> > Having been in and out of Prescott AZ several times as well as high density 
> > altitude conditions in the Calif. Central Valley and those of the CA 
> > deserts I can understand your position very well.
> >
> > Don Lively
> > --------
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "John" 
> > To: "KRnet" 
> > Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 9:11 PM
> > Subject: KR> Turbo to maintain Sealevel intake manifold pressure
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I just made a deposit on  a new long block 2180 for
> > > my KR2.
> > >
> > > I am in the Seattle area and virtualy surrounded by mountains.
> > >
> > > I have only 150 hours PIC, but in a pretty wide variety of
> > > craft (C-150, Musketeer, C-172, Champ, C-120,
> > > C-150 Long range, beech 1900 etc...  All of them seem (except the 1900)
> > > to run out of "guts" at about 9K feet.  I can't remember ever making 10k
> > > feet, they all were naturally aspirated.  Going over a 4k to 6k mountain
> > > range just to leave town leaves me wanting to clear those "Don't land
> > > here" speed bumps by oh, say, 5k or 6k ft.  Can't get there from
> > > "naturally aspirated" here.
> > >
> > > I am not a speed or performance demon. I fly like I drive:
> > > sort of slow and methodical.  But I want to clear those rocks
> > > (and the bigger ones east of there) by a wider margin.
> > >
> > > So,, I want a turbo charger.  I can find one, but I have not been able
> > > to find a controller for the waste gate that will limit the intake
> > > manifold pressure to 29.92 inches of mercury.  Or I suppose
> > > open the waste gate at 3700 rpm.
> > >
> > > Any ideas?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > jg
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
> > > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
> > > Post photos, introductions, and For Sale items to 
> > > http://www.kr2forum.com/phpBB2/index.php
> > > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
> > >
> > ___
> > Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
> > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
> > Post photos, introductions, and For Sale items to 
> > http://www.kr2forum.com/phpBB2/index.php
> > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
>
>
> ___
> Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
> Post photos, introductions, and For Sale items to 
> http://www.kr2forum.com/phpBB2/index.php
> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
>

KR> Turbo to maintain Sealevel intake manifold pressure

[John]

On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 10:29 -0500, J L wrote:
> Used to fly a comanche 250 over 10k all the time.


Interesting,  I've had several responses like this one,
indicating alot of folks are geting their 10k or 12k
ft (even more) with no problem.

Here in the Seattle area, the mountains to the east are pretty
close. I'd like to have strong climb performance
above 6k through to 12k or 14k.  No plane I've flown out
of Seattle could get to 12k before reaching the mountains
which are very close to Seattle.  As I recall, I could get 
to around 6 or 7k by the time I reached the mountains, clearing
them by only 3k or so.  If I wanted more clearance I'd
have to turn South or North and climb (very slowly) from
6 to 9 or so (doubling the time of my trip across the
rocks.)  

If I could get a good (non-diminishing) climb rate I'd
be alot happier.  I know the prop & wings will loose
their grip as the air thins, but if the engine can hold
it's revs that should improve things quite a bit.


jg

thanks for all your responses!

KR> Turbo to maintain Sealevel intake manifold pressure

[Dave Arbogast, CISSP]

John wrote:

>
>
>On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 10:29 -0500, J L wrote:
>  
>
>>Used to fly a comanche 250 over 10k all the time.
>>
>>
>
>
>Interesting,  I've had several responses like this one,
>indicating alot of folks are geting their 10k or 12k
>ft (even more) with no problem.
>
>Here in the Seattle area, the mountains to the east are pretty
>close. I'd like to have strong climb performance
>above 6k through to 12k or 14k.  No plane I've flown out
>of Seattle could get to 12k before reaching the mountains
>which are very close to Seattle.  As I recall, I could get 
>to around 6 or 7k by the time I reached the mountains, clearing
>them by only 3k or so.  If I wanted more clearance I'd
>have to turn South or North and climb (very slowly) from
>6 to 9 or so (doubling the time of my trip across the
>rocks.)  
>
>If I could get a good (non-diminishing) climb rate I'd
>be alot happier.  I know the prop & wings will loose
>their grip as the air thins, but if the engine can hold
>it's revs that should improve things quite a bit.
>
>
>jg
>
>thanks for all your responses!
>
>
>
>  
>
I crossed Lake Michigan in a stock Skyhawk with 3 people on the way to 
OSH I crossed at 13,999 ft and the climb / descent was from shore to 
shore.

-dave

KR> Turbo to maintain Sealevel intake manifold pressure

[Brian Kraut]

On my stock KR-2 with a 2180 I got about 200-300 FPM climb at 10,000' with
just me in it.  I am going by my old rusty memory, but that should be pretty
close.

Brian Kraut
Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
www.engalt.com

-Original Message-
From: krnet-boun...@mylist.net [mailto:krnet-boun...@mylist.net]On
Behalf Of John
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:02 PM
To: KRnet
Subject: Re: KR> Turbo to maintain Sealevel intake manifold pressure






On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 10:29 -0500, J L wrote:
> Used to fly a comanche 250 over 10k all the time.


Interesting,  I've had several responses like this one,
indicating alot of folks are geting their 10k or 12k
ft (even more) with no problem.

Here in the Seattle area, the mountains to the east are pretty
close. I'd like to have strong climb performance
above 6k through to 12k or 14k.  No plane I've flown out
of Seattle could get to 12k before reaching the mountains
which are very close to Seattle.  As I recall, I could get
to around 6 or 7k by the time I reached the mountains, clearing
them by only 3k or so.  If I wanted more clearance I'd
have to turn South or North and climb (very slowly) from
6 to 9 or so (doubling the time of my trip across the
rocks.)

If I could get a good (non-diminishing) climb rate I'd
be alot happier.  I know the prop & wings will loose
their grip as the air thins, but if the engine can hold
it's revs that should improve things quite a bit.


jg

thanks for all your responses!



___
Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
Post photos, introductions, and For Sale items to
http://www.kr2forum.com/phpBB2/index.php
please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html

KR> Turbo to maintain Sealevel intake manifold pressure

[Ronald R.Eason]

Contact me off line and I will send info and photos.

Ronald R. Eason Sr.
President / CEO
Ph: 816-468-4091
Fax: 816-468-5465 
http://www.jrl-engineering.com 
Our Attitude Makes The Difference!

-Original Message-
From: krnet-boun...@mylist.net [mailto:krnet-boun...@mylist.net] On Behalf
Of John
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 9:12 PM
To: KRnet
Subject: KR> Turbo to maintain Sealevel intake manifold pressure



I just made a deposit on  a new long block 2180 for
my KR2.

I am in the Seattle area and virtualy surrounded by mountains.

I have only 150 hours PIC, but in a pretty wide variety of
craft (C-150, Musketeer, C-172, Champ, C-120,
C-150 Long range, beech 1900 etc...  All of them seem (except the 1900)
to run out of "guts" at about 9K feet.  I can't remember ever making 10k
feet, they all were naturally aspirated.  Going over a 4k to 6k mountain
range just to leave town leaves me wanting to clear those "Don't land
here" speed bumps by oh, say, 5k or 6k ft.  Can't get there from
"naturally aspirated" here.  

I am not a speed or performance demon. I fly like I drive:
sort of slow and methodical.  But I want to clear those rocks
(and the bigger ones east of there) by a wider margin.

So,, I want a turbo charger.  I can find one, but I have not been able
to find a controller for the waste gate that will limit the intake
manifold pressure to 29.92 inches of mercury.  Or I suppose 
open the waste gate at 3700 rpm.

Any ideas?

Thanks

jg




___
Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
Post photos, introductions, and For Sale items to
http://www.kr2forum.com/phpBB2/index.php
please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.7/830 - Release Date: 6/3/2007
12:47 PM


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.7/830 - Release Date: 6/3/2007
12:47 PM

KR> Turbo to maintain Sealevel intake manifold pressure

[Randy Smith]

I took a 152 sparrowhawk and a Cherokee 160 To 13000
out of Windover Nev. We flew to Jackson Hole and about
5 or 6 other airports at high altitudes ( one was
9350') before we went back to Salt Lake. Lean and fly,
People do it all the time. I have flown a KR-2 with a
turbo in Dennis Pointers KR before he totaled it and
you had to be careful not to over boost. There is
nothing wrong with a turbo if you make damn sure you
don't ever over boost. It will get you High.
Especially a VW engine.


--- J L  wrote:

> Used to fly a comanche 250 over 10k all the time.
> 
> J
> 
> 
> On 6/3/07, John  wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I forgot the piper 180 that took 2 hours to climb
> to 8k feet in the
> > downhill (read downwind) side of a mountain range.
> >
> > I have never gotten anything naturally aspirated
> to 10k.  Perhaps
> > I did not have the time to wait (or the
> distance)..
> >
> > jg
> >
> > Gotta get high fast..
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 2007-06-03 at 21:42 -0500, D Lively wrote:
> > > John:
> > >
> > > I would say that your proposed use of a turbo
> charger is its best use but personally have flown
> C-172s to 13,000 & C-182s  to over 15000'  for short
> periods but view 12,500 ft about the limit for
> sustained operation by a non-smoking pilot or
> passenger without Oxygen.  I believe the craft you
> site all have service cielings in the 14000 area
> anyway.  Beware of over-boosting as it can be  hard
> on engines and shorten their life.
> > >
> > > Having been in and out of Prescott AZ several
> times as well as high density altitude conditions in
> the Calif. Central Valley and those of the CA
> deserts I can understand your position very well.
> > >
> > > Don Lively
> > >
>

> > >
> > >
> > > - Original Message -
> > > From: "John" 
> > > To: "KRnet" 
> > > Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 9:11 PM
> > > Subject: KR> Turbo to maintain Sealevel intake
> manifold pressure
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I just made a deposit on  a new long block
> 2180 for
> > > > my KR2.
> > > >
> > > > I am in the Seattle area and virtualy
> surrounded by mountains.
> > > >
> > > > I have only 150 hours PIC, but in a pretty
> wide variety of
> > > > craft (C-150, Musketeer, C-172, Champ, C-120,
> > > > C-150 Long range, beech 1900 etc...  All of
> them seem (except the 1900)
> > > > to run out of "guts" at about 9K feet.  I
> can't remember ever making 10k
> > > > feet, they all were naturally aspirated. 
> Going over a 4k to 6k mountain
> > > > range just to leave town leaves me wanting to
> clear those "Don't land
> > > > here" speed bumps by oh, say, 5k or 6k ft. 
> Can't get there from
> > > > "naturally aspirated" here.
> > > >
> > > > I am not a speed or performance demon. I fly
> like I drive:
> > > > sort of slow and methodical.  But I want to
> clear those rocks
> > > > (and the bigger ones east of there) by a wider
> margin.
> > > >
> > > > So,, I want a turbo charger.  I can find one,
> but I have not been able
> > > > to find a controller for the waste gate that
> will limit the intake
> > > > manifold pressure to 29.92 inches of mercury. 
> Or I suppose
> > > > open the waste gate at 3700 rpm.
> > > >
> > > > Any ideas?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > >
> > > > jg
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ___
> > > > Search the KRnet Archives at
> http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
> > > > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to
> krnet-le...@mylist.net
> > > > Post photos, introductions, and For Sale items
> to http://www.kr2forum.com/phpBB2/index.php
> > > > please see other KRnet info at
> http://www.krnet.org/info.html
> > > >
> > > ___
> > > Search the KRnet Archives at
> http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
> > > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to
> krnet-le...@mylist.net
> > > Post photos, introductions, and For Sale items

KR> Turbo to maintain Sealevel intake manifold pressure

[robert7...@aol.com]

Just did the same testing in my KR2S last week. At 10,000 I was still  
getting 200-300 fpm with my Revmaster 2100D (no turbo). That is the highest 
I've  
taken my plane at this time.  I now have 73 hours on her since first flight  
last Sep. 

Rob Schmitt
N1852Z
_www.robert7721.com_ (http://www.robert7721.com) 


Message: 1
List-Post: krnet@list.krnet.org
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 13:23:24 -0400
From: "Brian Kraut"  
Subject: RE: KR> Turbo to maintain Sealevel  intake manifold pressure
To: "KRnet" 
Message-ID:  
Content-Type:  text/plain;charset="us-ascii"

On my stock KR-2 with a 2180  I got about 200-300 FPM climb at 10,000' with
just me in it.  I am going  by my old rusty memory, but that should be pretty
close.

Brian  Kraut
Engineering Alternatives,  Inc.
www.engalt.com




** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.