Don Dunbar wrote:

has anyone used an Eaton supercharger on the 13B for an aircraft?

Although

it is not as efficient as the turbo it is much lighter and has no hot
turbine to worry about. There is also no need for a inter cooler.

Russell Kent wrote:

While I'll agree that engine-driven superchargers don't have the hot

blow-down

turbine housing that a turbocharger does, I disagree that superchargers

don't

need intercoolers.  Intercoolers are needed anytime the air needs to be

cooled

after being compressed.  Turbochargers and superchargers both compress

the

intake air, and so both *may* have a need for an intercooler.  Whether

they

need an intercooler depends on the installation parameters.

Russell Kent

Actually, vane or impeller mechanical superchargers, because of their lower
efficiency, have an even greater need for intercoolers at the same pressure.
That inefficiency shows up first as heat added to the air "charge"

Turbochargers are just so much better suited to aircraft operating
conditions, that I find it strange to see the mechanical units being
used. The big advantage for driven blowers is throttle respons, which
is almost a non issue for airplanes - Vance J

 
The AirCraft Rotary Engine NewsLetter.              Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site. Copyright 1998-2002 All world wide rights reserved.
http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/            http://www.linux.org