>
         > Makes sense Rick..  I guess since I am looking at whether
        anything would
         > be gained by remote mounting the turbocharger, I am most
        interested in
         > EGT starting at about 12 inches out to 6ft.  But, the issues
   you
        mention
         > are certainly relevant.
         >
         >
         > Regards,
         > Matt


        Matt,
        I'm no expert on Turbo, but I believe that some turbo's are
   already
        remotely
        located in some cars.
        There will be some loss of exhaust energy over a distance, but that
        is more
        than offset with lower heat, greater life expectancy, and for
        normalizing
        (higher RPM) it's the way to go. Now where to put it is another
   matter.
        George (down under)


   Thanks George.  I agree with you.  Maybe the benefits outweigh the
   risks..

   I posted this a few messages ago:

   http://www.ststurbo.com/universal_system
   <http://www.ststurbo.com/universal_system>

   They have a remote mount turbo system, not that I am saying any single
   component from them would be useful on an airplane.  Just that such a
   system has been used and apparently it performs well enough to sell..
   The pictures on their website are intriguing.


   Regards,

   Matt-

   Here is an interesting diagram.

   --
   Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.


The ducting is 'voluminous'.  You can see why the Jug was such a chubby
bird when all of the ducting is shown..  Kind of have to design the
airframe around the concept.


Matt-

The P-47 pilots said it was far superior to German aircraft at high altitudes.
Big problem was it did not store enough fuel for all that HP so the range suffered.
The P51 had a big tank behind the pilot. It also had only six machine guns
instead of eight in the P-47 leaving more room in the wing for tankage. In addition
to that the P47 had about 2000 HP while the P51 only had 1500 HP.