I thought the SVX had no performance support.

[LarryIII]

Aviation requirements are very, very different than those for automotive applications, as has been stated in previous posts.
So the "aircraft EG-33" that is twin turbocharged may perform very poorly when put into an SVX.

I think young Tom is correct. I vaugely remember seeing the photo of this engine many years ago, either on this site or the Yahoo site.

[oab_au]

A supercharger can not compensate for air density, the same as a turbo charger can, in aircraft use.
Developing a EG33 for aircraft use, has the engine speed limited to around 4000 rpm, due to the maximum prop tip speed.

Harvey.

[TomsSVX]

Originally Posted by oab_au

A supercharger can not compensate for air density, the same as a turbo charger can, in aircraft use.
Developing a EG33 for aircraft use, has the engine speed limited to around 4000 rpm, due to the maximum prop tip speed.

Harvey.

This all depends on what kind of supercharger you are using... The guys in aviation opted out of a TT setup for a centrifugal s/c.

Tom

[oab_au]

Originally Posted by TomsSVX

This all depends on what kind of supercharger you are using... The guys in aviation opted out of a TT setup for a centrifugal s/c.

Tom

With a turbo in aircraft, as the air gets thinner with altitude, the pressure difference across the turbine increases, so the turbine/compressor increases its speed to maintain the boost pressure. The other forms can't compensate for the air density the same.

Harvey.

[Crazy_pilot]

Turbo's in aircraft are mainly used to maintain power as the plane climbs. They can be used to increase power, but this is very rare. Superchargers are used as the big power-boosters, often for planes that do not reach altitudes where thin air is an issue.

My favorite example is the Argus maritime patrol plane. It had 4 engines, each was a twin bank radial, 9 cylinders per bank. Each engine was triple-turbo'd and supercharger. Full power was only used on take-off with a heavy load, and methanol injection was used to keep the engines from melting into big hunks of iron.

[TomsSVX]

Originally Posted by oab_au

With a turbo in aircraft, as the air gets thinner with altitude, the pressure difference across the turbine increases, so the turbine/compressor increases its speed to maintain the boost pressure. The other forms can't compensate for the air density the same.

Harvey.

Great, i guess I read it wrong as to why they lost the TT idea and went to a centrifugal.

Tom

[RSVX]

Originally Posted by oab_au

With a turbo in aircraft, as the air gets thinner with altitude, the pressure difference across the turbine increases, so the turbine/compressor increases its speed to maintain the boost pressure. The other forms can't compensate for the air density the same.

Harvey.

Originally Posted by TomsSVX

Great, i guess I read it wrong as to why they lost the TT idea and went to a centrifugal.

Tom

Perhaps if either of you were to provide proof other than your word, that would help each other in understanding.

After all, you could BOTH be right.

[TomsSVX]

Man I had to dig back to '03 for this... I knew it was there though

http://www.sdsefi.com/air31.htm

Tom

[Hocrest]

Originally Posted by TomsSVX

Man I had to dig back to '03 for this... I knew it was there though

http://www.sdsefi.com/air31.htm

Tom

I don't care how powerful this engine is, I see one minor problem that will keep this thing on the ground...

[RSVX]

Originally Posted by Hocrest

I don't care how powerful this engine is, I see one minor problem that will keep this thing on the ground...

The lack of smooth paint adding too much drag?

[jeffast]

it didn't actually say why he went for the super charger over the turbos...

[TomsSVX]

yes but there was a hefty discussion about it years ago... Like I said, there can only be one reason to scrap such a heavily invested project, that is if it was not working the way it needed to and there was no foreseeable positive outcome from it. I am not going to argue this I was merely stated what I had read in the past.

Tom

[crazyhorse]

I have no intenton of stirring the pot, but in that link it sates that the engine popped a seal out of the prop drive on the dyno. Could it possibly be that the EG33TT made TOO much hp for the reduction drive? Thus prompting the switch to the EG33SC.

Either way, with 350+ hp at the crank, in that tiny airframe, that thing ought to fly, wings optional!

[TomsSVX]

Originally Posted by crazyhorse

I have no intenton of stirring the pot, but in that link it sates that the engine popped a seal out of the prop drive on the dyno. Could it possibly be that the EG33TT made TOO much hp for the reduction drive? Thus prompting the switch to the EG33SC.

Either way, with 350+ hp at the crank, in that tiny airframe, that thing ought to fly, wings optional!

I doubt it... The seal would only pop out if the fluids inside the housing got so hot they expanded and pushed it out... Or some other mech issue. they never explained it.

Tom

[It's Just Eric]

...So to answer your question...no, Turbocharging svxi isnt very common, though there have been some one off fabrications done by varoius people for whatever reason (Many dont end up in an svx) Perfect example...the one of the fastest awd drag cars is made by tony rigoli proformance, and powered by a turbo eg33

The biggest issue is there arent any plug and play stand alone or piggy back ecu's being made publicly available, making the job beyond your average do it yourselfer.