Hot humid weather?
Yeah, I can see that being the most plausible reason however will a few ponies difference make that much of a difference when operating from sea level anyway and not being limited to a physical runway ? Pardon the ignorance, not a seaplane pilot, maybe one can chime in and add their 5c. I'm just wanting to educate myself.
Don't worry mate, I won't take offence to the condescending link.
Bare in mind the NA 540 makes a rated 300HP and the one discussed makes 310HP. From my limited understanding(I could be wrong) despite running at higher manifold pressures its only making 310HP because the compression ratio is dropped thus reducing the thermodynamic efficiency of the engine.
Its a pity turbo normalized hasn't been a more popular solution out of the factory for that reason.
I guess my question becomes a bit clearer now. Aircraft operates low most of the time. One engine makes an extra 10HP plus density losses. The other engine is more efficient and cheaper to maintain. Is there a factor that I'm simply oblivious to thats more specific to sea plane ops? Again, just trying to be curious rather than ignorant.
It's also a breath of fresh air to have a technical discussion on here rather than having to scroll through endless walls of text about 'wat flyin skool iz gud?' or 'f**k cazza'.
why does a turbo charged WRX go faster than a non-turbo one at sea level
Does it though? I have not seen a non-turbo WRX so I can't comment.
A WRX does actually have a large power advantage over a normal Impreza. Whereas the two aero engines compared here don't have quite the large difference which forms the basis of the discussion.