Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.180.170.33; envelope-from=crj@lucubration.com
Message-ID: <44CA30F0.2080900@lucubration.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:44:48 -0400
From: Chad Robinson <crj@lucubration.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (Windows/20060719)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Test
References: <list-1320453@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-1320453@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Ed Anderson wrote:
> I have two turbos sitting on my work bench - I've toyed with the idea on 
> and off for years, but just couldn't convince myself that I needed one 
> since I tend to cruise at lower airspeeds to keep the fuel burn and $$ 
> down.  If I needed some extra boost just for takeoff, I'd probably just 
> go NO2.  But, if I were to do a turbo, it would not be with the stock 
> Mazda turbo but would use something like the TO4.

I'm also toying with this decision, but fortunately in my case I have 
plenty of time to make up my mind. The thing that keeps rattling around 
in my head is that the Cozy I'm building was really intended to fly 
high. I see pilots talking about exactly what altitude they start their 
oxygen, and it adds fuel to my turbo fire.

What I haven't been able to quantify is exactly how beneficial the turbo 
is in this case - normalization. It seems you can calculate the numbers 
to support either argument, and you have to weigh your goals against the 
pros and cons of either decision. Sometimes choice is a bad thing.

I guess, in the end, I will probably install a T04 mainly because I'm 
following closely in John Slade's footsteps, and so far his T04 is 
working out. I have enough time to watch how it continues to perform as 
he builds up more hours on it. So far it seems promising. Eyes and minds 
open, I guess.

Regards,
Chad