sonny junell

sonny junell

Well Known Member
Ok. Guys here is one more to get your blood pressure up. I am looking for a web site(s) or company to turbo norm my IO-540, I basiclly need pictures, Diagrams, and price list, I can fab all the tube, and fixtures, I just need need the hardware i.e. turbo, and manuel wastgate, intercooler and something to go by, as far as this goes where. "thats what she said" any way. If you think you have an idea of what I am looking for let me know. Other wise get back out in the hanger and finish that RV.

We are in the planning stages of a 10

The turbocharging book by MacInnes is also very good by the way
 
I could help you with hardware selection if you know your mission altitudes and power settings. I think you will have a hard time fitting something real in the cowling though without major mods.

Manual wastegate control would not be recommended. You can go single or twin turbos, both have advantages and disadvantages.

The exhaust will be pretty complicated to fab on this engine due to the need for slip joints or bellows between each cylinder and the 321 material required. You also need support structures for the turbos, probably bigger cooling inlets, cowl flap, intercooler inlets and ducting. If you are flying below oxygen altitudes mostly, a good high compression atmo IO-540 (275-300hp) will probably do the job nicely with less trouble, expense and weight.
 
Last edited:
Sonny: Better read this if you haven't already. I don't know how to attach the file, but go to Van's site www.vansaircraft.com and look at the RV-9 model under specifications and read the PDF file "Why can't I use a larger engine?"
 
Thank you for your time rv6guy

Thanks rv6ejguy, I have read some you your post on the subject and you sound like you know your stuff especially after reading MacInnes book,

As far as the fabbing I feel I could at least head in the right direction I am not saying I will get it right the first time or second or third probably for that matter but I feel confident any way. www.westernsheetmetal.com this is my pay the bills job. As far as slip joints or bellows between each cylinder please enlighten me I am not familiar with this term, I think I may be calling that something different. The last 321 2" OD SS pipe I bought was about $10 a foot I belive it was 1/8 wall but I can probably find some more. And the support structures is where I am currently looking at as far as where to mount I looking between #1 and #3 jugs drill studs right into the block, similar to a C-337, and yes defiantly bigger cooling inlets, probably cowl flaps, were taking baby steps, this is all preliminary. Some neighbors of our down the street turbo-ed there RV-8, I need to go take another look at there set up.


The idea of a twin turbo system crossed my mind, what do you feel the advantages would be?

The reason I was contemplating manual wastgate is ease of installation and simplicity. Where would you consider going?


Again thank you for your advice and time on this post

Also the reason for turbo-ing we want an airplane that can regualry make 16 to 18 not looking to break speed records. Also thanks to the person who posted the vans artical, I have read that several times before but my partner on this plane has not.
 
Last edited:
If you look at most aviation and road racing turbo systems, you'll usually see that between each cylinder or on each pipe heading in different directions, a stainless or Inconel bellows is used to minimize stresses from differential expansion. This is especially high with 321 material compared to mild steel for instance. Alternately a slip joint can be used. This has the hot pipe inside an expanded section with about .002- .005 cold clearance. These flow better and are far less expensive.

Use material at least .058 in wall thickness if you want reliability. Commonly used .035 just does not last well.

The turbos need to be supported by a proper structure to the engine- never hung off the tubing.

Twin turbos may or may not offer a packaging advantage over a large single turbo. There would be no performance advantage.

I think automotive type pneumatic wastegates with very light springs would be the way to go for automatic boost control. You can add an inexpensive air regulator to adjust boost at altitude. This lowers pilot workload at low altitudes in the pattern. The manual design has merit if you have it on the checklist. Just use a vernier cable for actuation. Could be simpler and cheaper.

If the turbos are low mounted, you will need an oil scavenge pump to return oil to the engine. The upper engine mount diagonal may preclude a high mounted single turbo. I do a lot of packaging studies before deciding. If you can find an RV10 that you can look at with engine installed, this would be very helpful.

Van's advice should be heeded but simply reducing power at altitude should allow you to stay under TAS limits- either dial this in on your ASI if you are cheap like me or pay attention to your glass readout. Really a no brainer.

This should give you a solid 190 knots TAS at these altitudes easily. :D
 
Last edited:
Thanks Agian

This has been very helpful info. The slip joint system make much more sense, however I will keep my options open, it also sounds like I will be haveing to oil scavenge pump off the turbo, any ideas there?

And yes simply keeping the airfame under 200 TAS seems very do-able :)

Thanks agian for you time

Sonny Junell
Fly Safe
 
May be able to obtain a factory type scavenge pump for a 540 to drive off a spare accessory pad, belt drive a dry sump type race car scavenge pump or use electric ones. This can be a bit touchy with positive displacement types as too much capacity at high rpm will collapse the turbo seals. Porsche uses a bypass tube to prevent this (sucks a bit of air in).
 
Turbo Aircraft

I was with a bunch of guys last week who were taking off to the Baja for a week and they all had turbo aircraft. 210's, and Saratoga. We were discussing their planes. I asked them if they liked their turbo charged engines or would they rather have normaly aspirated ones? Their comment to me was, "once you own a turbo charged aircraft, you will never go back". I was really amazed and taken back by this comment because I have heard so many bad stories about heat, reliabiliy, ect....

My next thought was, well maybe it was because they can't take off in short distance like we can in the RV-10, or climb like the RV-10 can. I have never flown a turbo charged aircraft. I have flown in a turbo 206 but never flown it. I still don't understand that comment too much.

I will say this though, the guys who owned the turbo aircraft has never flown in an RV-10. Anyway, it was just a discussion we had and made me wonder about what I am missing without a turbo. But on the flip side it made me think that they may not understand how great the RV-10 is without the turbo and how easily it climbs to 15,000 at gross. I will admit though that if you want to hit 18,000 the RV-10 really starts to climb slow much higher at gross weight. I have heard the Cirrus does 500 fpm up to 18k. It does 500 fpm at 2000 ft and 500 ft/min at 15k. Don't know if that is true.
 
Last edited:
ScottSchmidt said:
Their comment to me was, "once you own a turbo charged aircraft, you will never go back". I was really amazed and taken back by this comment because I have heard so many bad stories about heat, reliabiliy, ect....
Click to expand...

Yep, that's how I see it. You could maintain 2000 fpm all the way to 18K so you spend way less time climbing and more time cruising plus you get a solid 20-30 knots more up there. Flying in the mountains- the turbo is the answer. With a modern, properly designed system, reliability should be close to or on par with an atmo engine.
 
Go FOR IT!

ScottSchmidt said:
I was with a bunch of guess last week who were taking off to the Baja for a week and they all had turbo aircraft. 210's, and Saratoga. We were discussing their planes. I asked them if they liked their turbo charged engines or would they rather have normally aspirated ones? Their comment to me was, "once you own a turbo charged aircraft, you will never go back". I was really amazed and taken back by this comment because I have heard so many bad stories about heat, reliability, ect....
Click to expand...
Ask the owner, what do you think he is going to say? I was a CFI at a school/club with a turbo C210 and P210. They where a nightmare maintenance wise. Those turbo systems have been improved over the years with STC's and better components, but its still more money.......... Every 50 hours, there was some thing to fix, repair, replace on the turbo system. The Seneca II twins we had also where turboed but where pretty reliable regarding the turbo system.

There are enough threads on the subject and Ross's post are golden. It can be done. I think auto components might be cost effective. The aftermarket auto guys offer car turbo conversions and even offer inter-coolers. It's not going to be cheap, and its going to take time to design. I like the manual waste gate idea, but as Ross said you have to watch it. The TSIO360 in the Piper Seneca II had a semi-auto waste-gate, but you had to watch throttle position, you could over boost. (I think later versions or some STC fixed that.)

Go for it if you want. Just be aware you are adding cost and weight. Are you going to use it? Are you really going to use it to advantage, flying in the teens.

Technically Ross is the man on the subject. I would not do it on the cheap, go with intercooler'(s). There's a turbo RV-8 flying and he stuffed it all under the hood. Its crowded and it has cowl side NACA scoops and vents. I wounder if the extra drag is enough to justify the extra pony's at altitude. There is extra drag down low so your top sea level speed will be less, however down low is not your turbo mission. I recall his numbers, max speed and at altitude, not that impressive, especially when compared to his fuel burn. At least when you climb an ATMO engine your fuel burn goes down. I would track down that RV-8'er with the red flamed turboed RV-8. Ask for his input if you are still on the fence. I've got piston-turbo charged plane experience but not in RV's. The planes I flew with turbos, I was paid to fly. I did not maintain them, although I heard cursing coming from the mechanics in the hanger when they worked on them.

They have been turbo-ing and super-charging GA planes for decades. Its not new. With a pressurized piston plane you need the turbo'(s). It would be cool and add high/hot/alt performance, but there's no free lunch, you'll pay or lose in other ways. If you want to fly real high, long distance, say 75% of the time, especially if you fly at gross & high density, it would be value added. If you are going to be the typical RV'er, flying local mostly with some short X-C's over flat land, with one long X-C annually, the turbo may not earn its keep, from a pure value number crunch. From an emotional stand point? Only you and your wallet can answer that.

Stay ATMO but get a 'Turbo' sticker and slap it on the side of the cowl. You still will beat most of the HI PERF turbo singles out there. You'll get the turbo status and cachet for the cost of $2.50 sticker. :D
 
Last edited:
Also...

If I understand what I have read on Vans site, because you have more power up high, you will need to watch TAS to make sure that you don't exceed VNE (flutter limited).

Good luck, keep posting on your progress.

Kent
 
George is right, many of the OE turbos are a maintenance nightmare so take a lesson here and don't design it like they did. Ditch the foolish hydraulic wastegates, who's idea was that?- maybe from a P47 or something. I look at some of the OE stuff and shake my head- they expect these to be reliable? Ain't no way. Some are not bad but some are just scary. Crack city, just waiting to happen.
 
My Doctor's story

My Doctor once had a nice Debonair. He bought a Turbo-Debonair. I said, "You aren't hurting for money. Why don't you hang on to the "straight" Debby 'till you see which you like best. A year later, he sold the turbo!
 
To stay on track

The turbo rv-8 guy you speak of is "Grezdlitn?, here is a EAA write up on there airplane

http://www.eaa.org/benefits/sportaviation/grezdlitn_0402.pdf

They are extremely nice guys by the way, any way I need to go talk to Mark, and Pete, and get there opinion. The man who posted about the buddy's who flew turbo aircraft and didn't want to go back, I am in the same boat I flew 400s Cessna?s for 4 years and I will not go back to normally aspirated any more, at least I don?t' think I will. I see the chance here to have a "new" modern turbo-ed airplane for under 200k and I would at least like to attempt it I will post again when I find out some more info on our application and what direction I think we will move in, and when I talk to Mark R.

Sonny J

Fly Safe
 
231mph at 25/25 is not too shabby. The F Rajay is not a bad match at 16K and this power setting. Gotta love turbos! A modern Garrett compressor could potentially be about 10% more efficient than this old compressor design.
 
Hardware Source

PS I am looking for a website or distributor for turbos certified or esperimental "aka Auto's" if any one has any recomendtions
 
Last edited:
A challenge but sounds rewarding

To add to Ross you will need some custom exhaust and special exhaust parts, turbo flanges and couplers. Check out Burns exhaust: http://www.burnsstainless.com/

And http://www.aircraftexhaust.net/ may be able to weld up the whole thing. If you can properly fab and weld stainless all the better. The exhaust in a turbo system is the key to system reliability.

You are going with a one off custom set-up. There are no kits for your application. You could look at a Turbo 540 set-up in a Ted Smith/Piper Aerostar, Navajo and Malibu. Not sure that will help too much. You have limited room. As Ross mentioned many turbos go high and behind the engine. To do that the engine mount needs to cantilever the engine further from the firewall to make room for the turbo.

turbocharger%20installation.jpg

No inter-cooler simple diagram.
402%20turbo.jpg


In my opinion engine life may go down, it seems to me. Simply because you will run it harder and hotter. As you climb there is less air to cool the engine which is making as much power as it would @ 8,000 feet not turboed, as you will now be making at FL180. So plan on a bigger oil cooler as well. As Ross suggest inter-coolers are a must, but there are non-intercooled aircraft installations. I know that would be very hard on the engine.

To put the bug in your ear, while you are at it, what about making it a product, a business? Make several "kits" or design it to be reproduced and "kit-ed". You could sell your turbo set-up to other RV-10 builders. It won't be cheap, but you could may be make some money on it?

You will spend time designing, engineering, fabricating but it can be done. The more you can do, weld stainless and machine parts, the better it will be. Depending on where you live you may have many options for sub-vendors to do the fab work, but that will add cost. It sounds exciting and a great learning experience. All the best, whether you go for it. :D

This is my objection to turbos in RV's: time, work, weight and cost. However turbos do have their advantage. I'm not so worried about exceeding your Vne, Vno or flutter margin as long as you operate with that in mind. A lot of planes (jets) I fly can exceed Vne/Vmo at will in level flight at any altitude.

It will be a challenge, like stuffing 10 lbs of stuff in a 5 lbs sack (click thumbnail).



A custom turbo conversion for cars cost about $3500-$5700. So you can plan on putting that much into parts at least. One turbo can cost $900 to $1500. Also you will have to vent and plumb the larger oil cooler and inter-cooler'(s) so not to cause more cooling drag. Sounds like fun.

In your research check out Rajay. They have 27 STC's going back to 1962 for converting ATMO GA planes with turbochargers. Here is one of their STC on a IO-540 with twin turbos:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulator...2571AA00593317?OpenDocument&Highlight=se 6 we

Here is a site that supports Rajay parts and list all Rajay STC's. Not saying you should copy their systems, but they may have some ideas or even parts you can adapt. http://www.rajayparts.com/13701.html
 
Last edited:
Oil cooling, engine cooling and intercooling all become bigger issues with turbo engines in aircraft, especially in climb. These will all need to be improved as you have less mass flow available at altitude while still producing high power. This means more drag.

I don't mean to rain on the parade but space in the stock RV10 cowling with a 540 in there is pretty limited to do a nice turbo system. Even with my much smaller Subaru engine, it took months to get it all to fit efficiently. If you move the engine ahead a couple inches with a new mount or reshape the cowling, you may get it all in there easier.

For single turbo, probably a TO4 B with a Q turbine wheel, divided, tangential 1.32 turbine housing and 62-1 compressor would be in the ballpark.

For twin units maybe a couple of T3s with stage 3 turbine wheels and .82 housings spinning Super 60 compressors.

You can see my flat six setup here in 3 photos down the page a bit: http://www.sdsefi.com/aircraft.html

I have twin T3s with slightly different turbine trim.
 
Cabin pressurization?

I see in George's diagram a feed to the cabin from the turbo charger.
Could the RV10 take some pressurization?

Kent
 
kentb said:
I see in George's diagram a feed to the cabin from the turbo charger.
Could the RV10 take some pressurization?

Kent
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the structure, doors and sealing preclude any useful pressurization differential. Too bad, this is what we really need. Is Van reading this?
:rolleyes:
 
The real question is, "What is your mission objective?"

Turbos create more heat, more maintenance, and burn more fuel for the extra horsepower. If you are racing, or trying to get over the Swiss Alps, perhaps nothing else will do.

If your goal is to fly faster, get a Cirrus or Columbia or Mooney Turbo, or build a Lancair IV-P.

If your goal is getting to altitude in a reasonable time and then enjoying better economy, get the 310hp version of the IO-540. It will still make 155hp at FL180, particularly if you install dual electronic ignitions - and you won't have to make special mods for cooling, etc.

If you just "gotta have a turbo," you may do better in that airframe (the RV-10) with the fairly new 210HP TNIO-390X - without quite so much worry about issues of flutter at high altitude / high TAS. You can buy a complete kit for that engine through Lancair.

Just realize that MANY people have talked about a turbo RV-10, and most agree that it is a BAD IDEA to stuff more HP into this airframe and take it up high. If you want to do that and have loved ones, please consider an airframe that is meant for that flight regime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.