Hi
Any feedback on turbo normalizers that have been placed on the 4 bangers
for the E,F, or 201?
Heard that the 6 cylinder engines were made for the turbo and many
problems have occurred with
trying to put them on the 4 cylinder engines.
Also heard that they Ray Jay turbo is more problematic then the newer
turbo made for mooneys (m20 turbo)?
Thanks!
Craig
)
Joe,
It was not my intention to suggest HOW to fly the airplane, just that it was extra cost and complexity unless you DO fly over 10K on a regular basis. If the original poster plans on flying above 10K regularly, then by all means he should get a turbo or turbo-normalized airplane, regardless of where in the country that flying is done. But, as you well know, below 10K, the turbo doesn't do much for performance and adds a lot of cost and complexity that may not be needed if he is not planning on going to oxygen altitudes routinely.
I'm all for flying higher to get above the weather and traffic and turbulence, or to get better true airspeeds, etc. However, I hate the cannulae (cannuluses?), so I don't generally get above 10K unless in something pressurized. Again, no implication meant, just a suggestion to look at projected use of the airplane before taking the turbo leap.
Rob
-----Original Message-----
>From: Joe Llamas <>
>Sent: Oct 5, 2010 9:53 AM
>To: 'Aviation discussion list for Mooney enthusiasts' <>
>Subject: RE: ray jay turbo vs m20 turbo
>
>I would only suggest a turbo-normalized or
>turbo-charged engine if you plan on using it regularly - as in high density
>altitude takeoffs and/or cruising well above 10,000' on a regular basis
>
>Rob:
>
>I do not disagree with anything you said regarding the longevity of the
>Lycoming in a turbo normalized application. I slightly disagree with your
>comment regarding flying over 10K. THE IMPLICATION IS WHY DO YOU WANT TO
>FLY OVER 10k.
>My flying has been on the eastern half of the US and my instruction was
>there also. The old wives tale was you do not need a turbo unless you are
>in the western part of the nation. After flying for over 20 years in the 6
>to 12 K altitudes and dealing with a lot of in route weather, I moved to a
>turbo and find 98% of the weather is below 14 to 17 K in the eastern part of
>the US. While I have had to circumnavigate towering cumulus, this happens
>very infrequently. I am amazed at how frequently I will be at 14K and ATC
>will say "showing heavy precip 10 miles at your 12 o'clock advise deviation
>request and as I look out the window there is absolutely nothing. It is
>below me.
>Joe Llamas 94FL Fort Myers KLUK Cincinnati
>
>
>
)
The 6 cylinder engines I'm assuming you're referring to are the Continental
TSIO-360 engines in the K models (231/252). They were made from the factory
to be turbocharged. The 4-cylinder Lycomings were not, which is why the
aftermarket turbos tend to be turbo-normalizers. If the engine is treated
right, a turbo-normalized Lycoming should last as well as a
normally-aspirated Lycoming. I would only suggest a turbo-normalized or
turbo-charged engine if you plan on using it regularly - as in high density
altitude takeoffs and/or cruising well above 10,000' on a regular basis. If
you're not going to do so, then you're wasting money and complexity.
I would imagine a later design turbo-normalizer would be a better design,
but I don't know specifics on either the Rayjay or the M20 turbo. The best
option is an automatic wastegate, followed by a manual wastegate, followed
lastly by a fixed wastegate.
Not a lot of detail for you, but hope that helps some.
Rob Levy
Professional Air Solutions
51 Aviation Circle
Suite 103
Weyers Cave, VA 24486
540-849-0823
www.professionalairsolutions.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "medicineman" <>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 12:55 AM
Subject: ray jay turbo vs m20 turbo
> Hi
> Any feedback on turbo normalizers that have been placed on the 4 bangers
> for the E,F, or 201?
> Heard that the 6 cylinder engines were made for the turbo and many
> problems have occurred with
> trying to put them on the 4 cylinder engines.
> Also heard that they Ray Jay turbo is more problematic then the newer
> turbo made for mooneys (m20 turbo)?
> Thanks!
> Craig
>
)
Have a look at prices on M20Ks. Look at what it would cost to buy a certified model and the resale of your plane with and without the turbo. Also factor in overhaul costs. It may or may not be cost effective.
--
Michael Baraz
"Rob Levy" <> wrote:
>The 6 cylinder engines I'm assuming you're referring to are the Continental
>TSIO-360 engines in the K models (231/252). They were made from the factory
>to be turbocharged. The 4-cylinder Lycomings were not, which is why the
>aftermarket turbos tend to be turbo-normalizers. If the engine is treated
>right, a turbo-normalized Lycoming should last as well as a
>normally-aspirated Lycoming. I would only suggest a turbo-normalized or
>turbo-charged engine if you plan on using it regularly - as in high density
>altitude takeoffs and/or cruising well above 10,000' on a regular basis. If
>you're not going to do so, then you're wasting money and complexity.
>
>I would imagine a later design turbo-normalizer would be a better design,
>but I don't know specifics on either the Rayjay or the M20 turbo. The best
>option is an automatic wastegate, followed by a manual wastegate, followed
>lastly by a fixed wastegate.
>
>Not a lot of detail for you, but hope that helps some.
>
>Rob Levy
>Professional Air Solutions
>51 Aviation Circle
>Suite 103
>Weyers Cave, VA 24486
>540-849-0823
>www.professionalairsolutions.com
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "medicineman" <>
>To: <>
>Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 12:55 AM
>Subject: ray jay turbo vs m20 turbo
>
>
>> Hi
>> Any feedback on turbo normalizers that have been placed on the 4 bangers
>> for the E,F, or 201?
>> Heard that the 6 cylinder engines were made for the turbo and many
>> problems have occurred with
>> trying to put them on the 4 cylinder engines.
>> Also heard that they Ray Jay turbo is more problematic then the newer
>> turbo made for mooneys (m20 turbo)?
>> Thanks!
>> Craig
>>
>
)
I would only suggest a turbo-normalized or
turbo-charged engine if you plan on using it regularly - as in high density
altitude takeoffs and/or cruising well above 10,000' on a regular basis
Rob:
I do not disagree with anything you said regarding the longevity of the
Lycoming in a turbo normalized application. I slightly disagree with your
comment regarding flying over 10K. THE IMPLICATION IS WHY DO YOU WANT TO
FLY OVER 10k.
My flying has been on the eastern half of the US and my instruction was
there also. The old wives tale was you do not need a turbo unless you are
in the western part of the nation. After flying for over 20 years in the 6
to 12 K altitudes and dealing with a lot of in route weather, I moved to a
turbo and find 98% of the weather is below 14 to 17 K in the eastern part of
the US. While I have had to circumnavigate towering cumulus, this happens
very infrequently. I am amazed at how frequently I will be at 14K and ATC
will say "showing heavy precip 10 miles at your 12 o'clock advise deviation
request and as I look out the window there is absolutely nothing. It is
below me.
Joe Llamas 94FL Fort Myers KLUK Cincinnati
)
I bought my C 16 yrs ago and since have put on 1700 hrs. I bought it with the Rayjay turbo normalizer and found it to be a significant addition. Based in Ohio, I don't use it for local flying most of the time, but it has come in handy getting up to cruise altitude with a full load (10-13000 ft) and in winter it gives me more options getting through layers. Being able to maintain ROC is a safety advantage, used wisely. I've made several trips west.....this past Aug. to Sedona and The Grand Canyon/monument valley. I was at gross weight, I don't want to think what it would've been like without the turbo. No evidence of additional stress on engine. I like the fact that that I only use it when I need it. I suppose that the turbo could destroy the engine if not used wisely, that is the same as many components on the plane. Minimal additional maintenance costs-----swapped out for newer turbo years ago, some additional parts on the air box, and a new waste gate.
Rod Vivian M20C @ I69
Sent from my iPad
On Oct 5, 2010, at 9:55 AM, "" <> wrote:
> I have had the M-20 turbonormalizer on my '82 J for about 7 years. I like the
> climb rate at altitude when encountering ice and the extra speed you can pick up
> at 15-17K (going east usually); usually stay low heading toward CO. I had it
> installed after a difficult departure from JAC unable to maintain altitude in IMC
> and an at gross TO from APA in the summer with enough gas to get to LBF before
> continuing on to SUX.
>
> John Bartholomew
> '82 M20J turbo
> SUX
>
> On Mon Oct 4 21:55 , medicineman <> sent:
>
>> Hi
>> Any feedback on turbo normalizers that have been placed on the 4 bangers
>> for the E,F, or 201?
>> Heard that the 6 cylinder engines were made for the turbo and many
>> problems have occurred with
>> trying to put them on the 4 cylinder engines.
>> Also heard that they Ray Jay turbo is more problematic then the newer
>> turbo made for mooneys (m20 turbo)?
>> Thanks!
>> Craig
>>
>
>
> ---- Msg sent via CableONE.net MyMail - http://www.cableone.net=
)
I installed a salvaged Rajay turbo kit on my E model a number of years back.
The Rajay is no longer made.
The Rajay has no intercooler and a manual wastegate, which makes it high
workload in climb and cruise, constantly fiddling with the wastegate. It works
reliably and well, however. At 8000 ft, it allows you to run lean of peak and a
true 75% power at 10 gph, which is probably 5 knots or more faster than ROP book
power settings. Mine will do 165ktas at 8000 or 195ktas at 18000 on 10gph/75%,
with speed mods. No maintenance or cooling issues on mine, but I have the oil
cooler relocation and 66 and later cowl, and the baffling is sealed tight as a
drum.
The M20 turbo uses a popoff for boost control and a fixed bleed wastegate, so
operation is invisible to the user. When I close my wastegate, it is much
quieter, so I'd imagine that would be a benefit of the M20 Turbo with the
wastegate always closed.
I doubt it would make economic sense to add one today, but I'd gladly buy one if
one was for sale. Its nice to quickly climb out of clag and ice, and cruising
at FL 180 with the wind at your tail on 02 is great, and mountain crossing
becomes a non-event as well. Personally, I'm a fan of the 4 cylinder mooneys,
especially the short bodies for light weight, short field, etc. and I think a
turbo E with long range tanks, is a fantastic plane that can take off out of
2000 ft of grass, fly for 8 hours with an hour reserve, and land on 2000 ft of
grass , but it's a buyers market, so you'll find good deals on 231s etc. The
folks on this list can point out the ins and outs of the specific models and
upgrades.
I'll get screamed at for this but, if it were me, and I weren't financially
constrained, if I was looking for a bigger/faster airplane than a turbo 4
cylinder Mooney, I'd look at a Bonanza, ideally a turbonormalized Bonanza. The
turbo systems are well sorted, payload is phenominal, speed/fuel burn profiles
are about the same as a Mooney within practical limits, and you get club 6
seating on the later ones. The big engine Mooneys can't short/grass field well,
and you pay a lot of penalty in space and payload for a given mission profile to
pick up a few knots.
Phil
'65 M20E Turbo
'60 Twin Bonanza Excalibur
>Hi
>Any feedback on turbo normalizers that have been placed on the 4 bangers
>for the E,F, or 201?
>Heard that the 6 cylinder engines were made for the turbo and many
>problems have occurred with
>trying to put them on the 4 cylinder engines.
>Also heard that they Ray Jay turbo is more problematic then the newer
>turbo made for mooneys (m20 turbo)?
>Thanks!
>Craig
>
)
Rob:
Rob:
I was trying to point out that the most important function of the turbo (eastern US) is for weather avoidance, less traffic, and higher speeds. While I am not a great fan of canaille, it is simplified with built in O2, it beats the penalty levied by the insurance companies for a pressurized aircraft and the additional maintenance. Best that this information not be broadcast to widely or the second benefit, less traffic, will disappear.
Joe Llamas
-----Original Message-----
From: mooney- [mailto:mooney-] On Behalf Of Rob Levy
Sent: 10/05/2010 10:16 AM
To: Aviation discussion list for Mooney enthusiasts
Subject: RE: ray jay turbo vs m20 turbo
Joe,
It was not my intention to suggest HOW to fly the airplane, just that it was extra cost and complexity unless you DO fly over 10K on a regular basis. If the original poster plans on flying above 10K regularly, then by all means he should get a turbo or turbo-normalized airplane, regardless of where in the country that flying is done. But, as you well know, below 10K, the turbo doesn't do much for performance and adds a lot of cost and complexity that may not be needed if he is not planning on going to oxygen altitudes routinely.
I'm all for flying higher to get above the weather and traffic and turbulence, or to get better true airspeeds, etc. However, I hate the cannulae (cannuluses?), so I don't generally get above 10K unless in something pressurized. Again, no implication meant, just a suggestion to look at projected use of the airplane before taking the turbo leap.
Rob
-----Original Message-----
>From: Joe Llamas <>
>Sent: Oct 5, 2010 9:53 AM
>To: 'Aviation discussion list for Mooney enthusiasts' <>
>Subject: RE: ray jay turbo vs m20 turbo
>
>I would only suggest a turbo-normalized or
>turbo-charged engine if you plan on using it regularly - as in high density
>altitude takeoffs and/or cruising well above 10,000' on a regular basis
>
>Rob:
>
>I do not disagree with anything you said regarding the longevity of the
>Lycoming in a turbo normalized application. I slightly disagree with your
>comment regarding flying over 10K. THE IMPLICATION IS WHY DO YOU WANT TO
>FLY OVER 10k.
>My flying has been on the eastern half of the US and my instruction was
>there also. The old wives tale was you do not need a turbo unless you are
>in the western part of the nation. After flying for over 20 years in the 6
>to 12 K altitudes and dealing with a lot of in route weather, I moved to a
>turbo and find 98% of the weather is below 14 to 17 K in the eastern part of
>the US. While I have had to circumnavigate towering cumulus, this happens
>very infrequently. I am amazed at how frequently I will be at 14K and ATC
>will say "showing heavy precip 10 miles at your 12 o'clock advise deviation
>request and as I look out the window there is absolutely nothing. It is
>below me.
>Joe Llamas 94FL Fort Myers KLUK Cincinnati
>
>
>
)
