Original RayJay Turbo Normalizer v M 20 Turbo v Turbo Bullet

[Marauder]

Embarrassingly I am not sure what CR means.

I always lean for ROP, not LOP. I find that the for the best power when I lean ROP I get the FF called for in the Turbo Bullet specs. Examples are: 65% @ 11.8 GPH & 75% @ 12.9%.

CR = Compression Ratio.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[carusoam]

Fun stuff around here...

Compression ratio CR

Fuel Flow FF

rich of peak ROP

lean of peak LOP

horse power HP

degrees before top dead center °BTDC

Normally aspirated NA

Turbo charged TC'd

revs per minute RPM

Manifold pressure MP

 

Putting this altogether roughly... (From an old memory bank)

Determining HP of a NA engine is usually done by looking it up on a chart or estimating it using a combination of MP and RPM.

doing the same thing LOP is as simple multiplying FF X the proper constant.

 

Example: a 200 hp NA IO360 with a CR of 8.5 will burn approximately 13.4 gph at full power.  This is a little quirky because most Js don't produce 100% power while running LOP.  There is too much risk of harmful detonation if something gets out of line.  A safer 65% power has been demonstrated as a benchmark of engine safety while running mixture experiments.

Running at a red box safe 65% power, the same 200hp engine will produce 130 hp  using about 8.7 gph. This occurs at approximately 8,000' altitude or by adjusting the MP down to .65 X 29.92" of Hg.  Or 19.4"

Since the CR of the TB's engine has a different constant (assume 13.7 for now) to achieve identical performance at 65% HP. The 130 HP will be achieved at 9.5 gph...

 

So two friends (Mike and Chris let's say...) are flying to a Mooney fly in one has an NA J, the other has a TB modified J. They are flying VFR in loose formation at 8,500'.  

The J pilot sets his MP 19.4" and dials in his mixture to peak EGTs.  The FF for the J is showing 8.7 gph.

the TB pilot adjusts his throttle to get his FF to 9.5 gph, a few iterations may be required to get mixture to peak and adjust throttle to get FF back to 9.5...???

This is only factual when all of the numbers are confirmed.  The nice thing about a TC'd engine is that it can produce more hp at higher altitudes where the wind resistance is lower.  To do this with a level of safety for the cylinders, keeping CHTs well controlled is important.  To keep CHTs under control, running ROP may be the method that works best.

Flying Fast

Flying efficiently

Flying with low costs

It is a big challenge to get all three....

The challenge with the TB comes from the small number of people that have them.

Continue to hang out here and share the things you learn regarding your engine.  You will collect other people that are looking for what you know...

MS is an amazing place for sharing all things Mooney.

Don't run LOP until you are familiar with the red box concept and how it effects the safety of your hardware....

in case I wasn't clear...  I am a PP (private pilot), not an A&P (mechanic) or a CFI (flight instructor)

Best regards,

-a-

[Shadrach]

11 hours ago, carusoam said:

Fun stuff around here...

Compression ratio CR

Fuel Flow FF

rich of peak ROP

lean of peak LOP

horse power HP

degrees before top dead center °BTDC

Normally aspirated NA

Turbo charged TC'd

revs per minute RPM

Manifold pressure MP

 

Putting this altogether roughly... (From an old memory bank)

Determining HP of a NA engine is usually done by looking it up on a chart or estimating it using a combination of MP and RPM.

doing the same thing LOP is as simple multiplying FF X the proper constant.

 

Example: a 200 hp NA IO360 with a CR of 8.5 will burn approximately 13.4 gph at full power.  This is a little quirky because most Js don't produce 100% power while running LOP.  There is too much risk of harmful detonation if something gets out of line.  A safer 65% power has been demonstrated as a benchmark of engine safety while running mixture experiments.

Running at a red box safe 65% power, the same 200hp engine will produce 130 hp  using about 8.7 gph. This occurs at approximately 8,000' altitude or by adjusting the MP down to .65 X 29.92" of Hg.  Or 19.4"

Since the CR of the TB's engine has a different constant (assume 13.7 for now) to achieve identical performance at 65% HP. The 130 HP will be achieved at 9.5 gph...

 

So two friends (Mike and Chris let's say...) are flying to a Mooney fly in one has an NA J, the other has a TB modified J. They are flying VFR in loose formation at 8,500'.  

The J pilot sets his MP 19.4" and dials in his mixture to peak EGTs.  The FF for the J is showing 8.7 gph.

the TB pilot adjusts his throttle to get his FF to 9.5 gph, a few iterations may be required to get mixture to peak and adjust throttle to get FF back to 9.5...???

This is only factual when all of the numbers are confirmed.  The nice thing about a TC'd engine is that it can produce more hp at higher altitudes where the wind resistance is lower.  To do this with a level of safety for the cylinders, keeping CHTs well controlled is important.  To keep CHTs under control, running ROP may be the method that works best.

Flying Fast

Flying efficiently

Flying with low costs

It is a big challenge to get all three....

The challenge with the TB comes from the small number of people that have them.

Continue to hang out here and share the things you learn regarding your engine.  You will collect other people that are looking for what you know...

MS is an amazing place for sharing all things Mooney.

Don't run LOP until you are familiar with the red box concept and how it effects the safety of your hardware....

in case I wasn't clear...  I am a PP (private pilot), not an A&P (mechanic) or a CFI (flight instructor)

Best regards,

-a-

The angle valve N/A 200HP Lyc IO360 is 8.7 to 1. The 180hp parallel valve O360 and IO360 are 8.5 to 1. Increased CR is where the angle valve gets the bulk of its extra 20hp.

[carusoam]

Ross, you are always a great source of detail!

Thank you.

-a-

[Shadrach]

2 hours ago, carusoam said:

Ross, you are always a great source of detail!

Thank you.

-a-

I only said so because Walt Atkinson (of APS farmer) told me to use 15 as a multiplyer. I don't think it's correct.  I believe it's nearer to 16.