Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

Turbocharger

Wikiposts
Search

Notices
Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

Turbocharger

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 24th January 2015 | 13:51
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
From: India
Turbocharger

Hey guys,

I was recently studying performance and power augmentation and while doing so i came across a point which stated that turbochargered engines power output decrease as altitude increase? I wanted a little clarity

I understand that turbocharged engines produce increased back pressure but how?
A380800 is offline  
Reply
Old 24th January 2015 | 16:44
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
From: Classified
Turbocharger

..........

Last edited by Radix; 18th March 2016 at 01:21.
Radix is offline  
Reply
Old 26th January 2015 | 22:59
  #3 (permalink)  
25 Anniversary
 
Joined: Jun 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 1,187
Likes: 59
From: OZ
A388,
My take on this phenomenon you're asking about is that all piston engines lose power as density altitude increases - it's the nature of the beast.

Turbo charging as well as increasing power for T/O also maintains a higher air pressure in the induction system, ie a lower density altitude so you have more power. Hence better take off performance on hot, high D/A, days. Eventually you "run out of puff" as altitude increases and the turbo is maxed out so D/A starts to increase with further climb. A benefit of turbos is the recovery of waste energy going down the exhaust pipe, especially heat which is recovered as the exhaust gasses expand through the turbine. But nothing for nothing and it costs due to higher back pressure in the exhaust reducing overall efficiency a bit. Superchargers (mechanically driven) have similar benefits excluding the heat recovery but they tend to cost a bit more energy to run.

Turbos can and often are optimised for the mission so sizes vary on otherwise similar engines - look at engines powering, say, a Beech Duke and a Piper Chieftain, different planned cruise regimes mean different turbo sizing. Look also at Piper turbo normalised Seminoles which use small turbos mainly to help take off performance as D/A rises.
mustafagander is offline  
Reply
Old 26th January 2015 | 23:42
  #4 (permalink)  
15 Anniversary
 
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,824
Likes: 110
From: Virginia
If you removed the piston engine part of a turbo-compound (leaving the shaft connecting the supercharger and the turbine), and replaced it with a simple combustion chamber, you'd have a turboprop. Of course, you'd probably want to rearrange a few other things as well . . .
Chu Chu is online now  
Reply
Old 27th January 2015 | 01:58
  #5 (permalink)  
10 Anniversary
 
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 110
Likes: 1
From: Dallas
Originally Posted by msbbarratt
The compound engines of the B29 used exhaust turbines to add more torque to the crank shaft. These engines were also supercharged by a crank driven supercharger, so you can think of them as being indirectly turbo charged. Whether that was better than simply pointing the un-tapped exhaust backwards (like Merlins did) is debatable. It was certainly heavier, more complex and less reliable. It was probably more efficient though; on a slow aircraft like a B29, jet exhaust is not as efficient as putting a bit more power into the prop.
The B-29 was not engined with the Wright R-3350 turbo compound radial. It was a standard supercharged version. The postwar Boeing B-50 was powered by the P&W 4360, but not a turbo compound version. Wright was the only company to place the turbo-compound engine into production.

The Wright turbo-compound radial was not fully developed until after the war. It was fitted to military and civilian aircraft, the Douglas DC-7 and Lockheed Constellation being two civilian examples.
ThreeThreeMike is offline  
Reply
Old 27th January 2015 | 02:46
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,342
Likes: 0
From: Wingham NSW Australia
Turbo-Compound Wright 3350

The Turbo-Compounding certainly added to the power of the Wright 3350. It did, unfortunately, lead to the loss of at least one aircraft and eight crew members to my knowledge. In February 1959 a RAAF Neptune was lost as a result of an uncontained Power Recovery Turbine failure which led to an uncontrollable fire which was of such intensity as to burn through the wing resulting in the aircraft crashing into the bank of the Hawkesbury River, short of the airfield.
Old Fella is offline  
Reply
Old 27th January 2015 | 07:31
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 16
From: Here
Napier Nomad

Napier Nomad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Designed from the outset to be a compression ignition (diesel) turbo compound engine.

Was never in production but development continued until 1955. The pure jet and turbo jet won out and the project was eventually canned.
jimjim1 is offline  
Reply
Old 27th January 2015 | 07:48
  #8 (permalink)  
15 Anniversary
 
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 525
Likes: 2
From: Nearer home than before!
All engines lose power as the air density and pressure reduce, not just piston ones.


At 39,000ft the CFM is burning only 1.1tonnes per hour. this is because it's not getting much air in the front and not making much power, ram effect or not! Probably explains the time it gets to drag your ass to 41,000ft......
RVF750 is offline  
Reply

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.