Rear mounted turbo system

[a9x5l]

When we first saw the STS turbocharger mounted near the rear axle of a
fourth-gen F-body, we had some hesitation. After all, turbos have always
been located in the engine compartment where they can build up enough heat
to cook a pizza while consuming precious under-hood real estate. But then
one of the freethinkers from the office said, "Why not mount it in the
rear?" and we scrambled for answers...

http://chevyhiperformance.com/techarticles/148_0502_turbo/

http://www.ststurbo.com/remote_mounting___


--
a9x5l

[Graham W]

a9x5l wrote:
> When we first saw the STS turbocharger mounted near the rear axle of a
> fourth-gen F-body, we had some hesitation. After all, turbos have always
> been located in the engine compartment where they can build up enough heat
> to cook a pizza while consuming precious under-hood real estate. But then
> one of the freethinkers from the office said, "Why not mount it in the
> rear?" and we scrambled for answers...
>
> http://chevyhiperformance.com/techarticles/148_0502_turbo/
>
> http://www.ststurbo.com/remote_mounting___


"Since the turbo is mounted at the rear of the car, there is no added
heat build-up and the system is cooled from fresh ambient air, which
creates denser exhaust molecules to propel the turbo's turbine wheel
more efficiently."

I'm not sure which is funnier - marketing people who'll make claims like
this with a straight face, or "motoring journalists" who'll regurgitate
it without thinking about it.

"With the unit placed behind the rear axle, there is improved weight
transfer, thus better traction..."

I suppose thats one way to justify hanging more weight out behind the
back axle.

Love the picture of the air filter under the back of the truck, about
the dirtiest place available.

[atec]

a9x5l wrote:
> When we first saw the STS turbocharger mounted near the rear axle of a
> fourth-gen F-body, we had some hesitation. After all, turbos have always
> been located in the engine compartment where they can build up enough heat
> to cook a pizza while consuming precious under-hood real estate. But then
> one of the freethinkers from the office said, "Why not mount it in the
> rear?" and we scrambled for answers...
>
> http://chevyhiperformance.com/techarticles/148_0502_turbo/
>
> http://www.ststurbo.com/remote_mounting___
>
>
very interesting concept ..

[OzOne]

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 17:43:25 +1000, atec <"atec77(atec)"@hotmail.com>
scribbled thusly:

>a9x5l wrote:
>> When we first saw the STS turbocharger mounted near the rear axle of a
>> fourth-gen F-body, we had some hesitation. After all, turbos have always
>> been located in the engine compartment where they can build up enough heat
>> to cook a pizza while consuming precious under-hood real estate. But then
>> one of the freethinkers from the office said, "Why not mount it in the
>> rear?" and we scrambled for answers...
>>
>> http://chevyhiperformance.com/techarticles/148_0502_turbo/
>>
>> http://www.ststurbo.com/remote_mounting___
>>
>>
>very interesting concept ..

Certainly is,,,it'd make fitting a turbo to a V6 with its crowded
engine compartment much easier.


Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.

[Toby Ponsenby]

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 17:22:52 +1100, a9x5l wrote:

> When we first saw the STS turbocharger mounted near the rear axle of a
> fourth-gen F-body, we had some hesitation. After all, turbos have always
> been located in the engine compartment where they can build up enough heat
> to cook a pizza while consuming precious under-hood real estate. But then
> one of the freethinkers from the office said, "Why not mount it in the
> rear?" and we scrambled for answers...
>
> http://chevyhiperformance.com/techarticles/148_0502_turbo/
>
> http://www.ststurbo.com/remote_mounting___

Been done with Aircraft yonks go.
Thunderbolt - some Yankee P thingee - had the turbo in the fuselage
behind the wing.
Huge fucker of a thing - the aircraft, that is, so it *was* probably
placed there done for cooling and weight distribution.
Lockheed Lightnings had their turbos in the wings well behind the
engines.
And the one and only Turbo Boomerang appears to have had a turbo
placed well back from the engine as well.

--
Toby
quidquid latine dictum
sit, altum viditur

[OzOne]

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 18:27:39 +1000, Toby Ponsenby <toby@privacy.net>
scribbled thusly:

>On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 17:22:52 +1100, a9x5l wrote:
>
>> When we first saw the STS turbocharger mounted near the rear axle of a
>> fourth-gen F-body, we had some hesitation. After all, turbos have always
>> been located in the engine compartment where they can build up enough heat
>> to cook a pizza while consuming precious under-hood real estate. But then
>> one of the freethinkers from the office said, "Why not mount it in the
>> rear?" and we scrambled for answers...
>>
>> http://chevyhiperformance.com/techarticles/148_0502_turbo/
>>
>> http://www.ststurbo.com/remote_mounting___
>
>Been done with Aircraft yonks go.
>Thunderbolt - some Yankee P thingee - had the turbo in the fuselage
>behind the wing.
>Huge fucker of a thing - the aircraft, that is, so it *was* probably
>placed there done for cooling and weight distribution.
>Lockheed Lightnings had their turbos in the wings well behind the
>engines.
>And the one and only Turbo Boomerang appears to have had a turbo
>placed well back from the engine as well.

One huge difference...aircraft engines are not required to throttle
back for gear changes. RPM is relatively constant so no lag.


Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.

[The Raven]

"a9x5l" <a9x5l@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.02.20.06.22.51.780832@hotmail.com...
> When we first saw the STS turbocharger mounted near the rear axle of a
> fourth-gen F-body, we had some hesitation. After all, turbos have always
> been located in the engine compartment where they can build up enough heat
> to cook a pizza while consuming precious under-hood real estate. But then
> one of the freethinkers from the office said, "Why not mount it in the
> rear?" and we scrambled for answers...
>
> http://chevyhiperformance.com/techarticles/148_0502_turbo/
>
> http://www.ststurbo.com/remote_mounting___
>

The idea is 60+ years old. Go take a look at the P-47 and tell me where the
turbo was.

Trivia question: What was the maximum allowable turbo RPM on the P-47? How
did you know you the turbo was at that speed?

--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** Now I will bring chaos to the world!

[The Raven]

"Graham W" <zebedee@alphalink.commercial.au> wrote in message
news:37qsrgF5gq70tU1@individual.net...
> a9x5l wrote:
>> When we first saw the STS turbocharger mounted near the rear axle of a
>> fourth-gen F-body, we had some hesitation. After all, turbos have always
>> been located in the engine compartment where they can build up enough
>> heat
>> to cook a pizza while consuming precious under-hood real estate. But then
>> one of the freethinkers from the office said, "Why not mount it in the
>> rear?" and we scrambled for answers...
>> http://chevyhiperformance.com/techarticles/148_0502_turbo/
>>
>> http://www.ststurbo.com/remote_mounting___
>
>
> "Since the turbo is mounted at the rear of the car, there is no added heat
> build-up and the system is cooled from fresh ambient air, which creates
> denser exhaust molecules to propel the turbo's turbine wheel more
> efficiently."
>
> I'm not sure which is funnier - marketing people who'll make claims like
> this with a straight face, or "motoring journalists" who'll regurgitate it
> without thinking about it.
>
> "With the unit placed behind the rear axle, there is improved weight
> transfer, thus better traction..."

Umm, what about the 30ft of extra plumbing for the intake charge?

> I suppose thats one way to justify hanging more weight out behind the back
> axle.

Actually, the weight of having the turbo hanging out behind the axle line is
offset by all that intake plumbing back to the front.

> Love the picture of the air filter under the back of the truck, about the
> dirtiest place available.

I'm wondering about a few things:

1. Lag (must be massive)
2. Extra cost of all that return intake plumbing.
3. Oiling for the turbo bearings.
4. Thermal efficiency.


--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** Now I will bring chaos to the world!

[The Raven]

"Toby Ponsenby" <toby@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:1kkuj2oq1bsag$.3gp7syqwss28.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 17:22:52 +1100, a9x5l wrote:
>
>> When we first saw the STS turbocharger mounted near the rear axle of a
>> fourth-gen F-body, we had some hesitation. After all, turbos have always
>> been located in the engine compartment where they can build up enough
>> heat
>> to cook a pizza while consuming precious under-hood real estate. But then
>> one of the freethinkers from the office said, "Why not mount it in the
>> rear?" and we scrambled for answers...
>>
>> http://chevyhiperformance.com/techarticles/148_0502_turbo/
>>
>> http://www.ststurbo.com/remote_mounting___
>
> Been done with Aircraft yonks go.
> Thunderbolt - some Yankee P thingee - had the turbo in the fuselage
> behind the wing.

P-47, turbo-supercharger way back at the tail end of the fuselage.

> Huge fucker of a thing - the aircraft, that is, so it *was* probably
> placed there done for cooling and weight distribution.

Space considerations more than anything I suspect.

> Lockheed Lightnings had their turbos in the wings well behind the
> engines.

Actually on the tail booms.

> And the one and only Turbo Boomerang appears to have had a turbo
> placed well back from the engine as well.

What tail number would that have been?

I know two owners of Boomerangs, one being the owner of one of only two
airworthy examples in the world and, the other restoring the last one ever
produced. I don't doubt the possibility that a turbo Boomerang was produced
but neither owners have ever made mention of such a beast.

--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** Now I will bring chaos to the world!

[OzOne]

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 19:55:05 +1100, "The Raven"
<swilson150@yahoo.com.au> scribbled thusly:

>The idea is 60+ years old. Go take a look at the P-47 and tell me where the
>turbo was.

Same story, no gearchanges in an aircraft.
Rpm is set for takeoff then cruise...that's pretty much it.


>Trivia question: What was the maximum allowable turbo RPM on the P-47? How
>did you know you the turbo was at that speed?



Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.

[The Raven]

<OzOne> wrote in message news:galg11p73tdnlpv40t3shopk10b1r33t5d@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 19:55:05 +1100, "The Raven"
> <swilson150@yahoo.com.au> scribbled thusly:
>
>>The idea is 60+ years old. Go take a look at the P-47 and tell me where
>>the
>>turbo was.
>
> Same story, no gearchanges in an aircraft.
> Rpm is set for takeoff then cruise...that's pretty much it.

No it's not, you have to factor in air density changes as altitude varies.
Add to this the early turbos used in aircraft such as the P-47 had manually
adjusted waste gates (nothing automotic).


>
>
>>Trivia question: What was the maximum allowable turbo RPM on the P-47?
>>How
>>did you know you the turbo was at that speed?
>
>
>

--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** Now I will bring chaos to the world!

[Michael C]

"The Raven" <swilson150@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:42185109$0$11529$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
> I'm wondering about a few things:
>
> 1. Lag (must be massive)
> 2. Extra cost of all that return intake plumbing.
> 3. Oiling for the turbo bearings.
> 4. Thermal efficiency.

Some of these were addressed in the article. Lag is meant to be the same
because the total intake volume is the same without an intercooler. Oil
lines are run to the turbo. It's meant to be more efficient because the
exhaust gas is colder. The long intake acts like an intercooler and probably
costs less. I don't agree with much or any of that, it's just what they
claim.

Michael

[The Raven]

"Michael C" <mike@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:421859da$0$1998$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
> "The Raven" <swilson150@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:42185109$0$11529$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>> I'm wondering about a few things:
>>
>> 1. Lag (must be massive)
>> 2. Extra cost of all that return intake plumbing.
>> 3. Oiling for the turbo bearings.
>> 4. Thermal efficiency.
>
> Some of these were addressed in the article. Lag is meant to be the same
> because the total intake volume is the same without an intercooler.

That might work but you'd still have lag compared to a non-intercooled
system.

> Oil lines are run to the turbo.

Hmmm, I wouldn't be keen on putting so much oil line under the car where it
might be damaged (and the related loss of oil for the engine).

> It's meant to be more efficient because the exhaust gas is colder.

But due to the increased volume of plumbing and chance for the gasses to
cool, you'd lose out on efficiency. Look at it another way, why do people
use exhaust wrap to keep the heat/energy in the exhaust system?

> The long intake acts like an intercooler and probably costs less.

True, as long as you carefully route them. However the greater overall
volume would also result in flow issues on sudden open/close of the
throttle. Takes a while to get that long column of gas to change speed etc.

> I don't agree with much or any of that, it's just what they claim.

Fair enough, it has merit for many reasons but it also has it's down sides.


--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** Now I will bring chaos to the world!

[OzOne]

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 20:28:37 +1100, "The Raven"
<swilson150@yahoo.com.au> scribbled thusly:

><OzOne> wrote in message news:galg11p73tdnlpv40t3shopk10b1r33t5d@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 19:55:05 +1100, "The Raven"
>> <swilson150@yahoo.com.au> scribbled thusly:
>>
>>>The idea is 60+ years old. Go take a look at the P-47 and tell me where
>>>the
>>>turbo was.
>>
>> Same story, no gearchanges in an aircraft.
>> Rpm is set for takeoff then cruise...that's pretty much it.
>
>No it's not, you have to factor in air density changes as altitude varies.
>Add to this the early turbos used in aircraft such as the P-47 had manually
>adjusted waste gates (nothing automotic).
>

Yeah, I'm afraid it is.
Aircraft engines are not required to deliver good HP thru a wide RPM
range so lag and distance of the turbo from the inlet are not a
problem.
Sorry!

The reason the turboed was to improve performance at altitude, and yes
waste was adjustable to ensure that boost at cruise altitude was
optimum.


Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.

[Toby Ponsenby]

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 20:01:17 +1100, The Raven wrote:

> "Toby Ponsenby" <toby@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:1kkuj2oq1bsag$.3gp7syqwss28.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 17:22:52 +1100, a9x5l wrote:
>>
>>> When we first saw the STS turbocharger mounted near the rear axle of a
>>> fourth-gen F-body, we had some hesitation. After all, turbos have always
>>> been located in the engine compartment where they can build up enough
>>> heat
>>> to cook a pizza while consuming precious under-hood real estate. But then
>>> one of the freethinkers from the office said, "Why not mount it in the
>>> rear?" and we scrambled for answers...
>>>
>>> http://chevyhiperformance.com/techarticles/148_0502_turbo/
>>>
>>> http://www.ststurbo.com/remote_mounting___
>>
>> Been done with Aircraft yonks go.
>> Thunderbolt - some Yankee P thingee - had the turbo in the fuselage
>> behind the wing.
>
> P-47, turbo-supercharger way back at the tail end of the fuselage.
>
>> Huge fucker of a thing - the aircraft, that is, so it *was* probably
>> placed there done for cooling and weight distribution.
>
> Space considerations more than anything I suspect.
>
>> Lockheed Lightnings had their turbos in the wings well behind the
>> engines.
>
> Actually on the tail booms.
>
>> And the one and only Turbo Boomerang appears to have had a turbo
>> placed well back from the engine as well.
>
> What tail number would that have been?
>
> I know two owners of Boomerangs, one being the owner of one of only two
> airworthy examples in the world and, the other restoring the last one ever
> produced. I don't doubt the possibility that a turbo Boomerang was produced
> but neither owners have ever made mention of such a beast.

Model CA14 development special.
A46-1001 CA-14 1074 04/43 experimental development to increase
performance of fighter at altitude; first flight 13/1/43; received by
S.D.F. from CAC on 17/4/43; ground looped on landing 27/5/43 and
returned to CAC for repairs; received at 1 AD from CAC 4/6/44 after
conversion to CA-14a (see A46-103 for its involvement inthis project);
allocated to 1 APU for trials and tests with the turbo-supercharger;
after the war this aircraft did some work for the Meteorological
Bureau taking high altitude weather observations; stored until 11/3/49
then issued to DAP, struck off charge on that date.

From
<http://www.adf-serials.com/2a46.shtml>
Check out A46-103:-)
This A/C might have been interesting if it had gone into production in
1943, since from what I've read elsewhere, apparently it was a ripper
at high altitude.


--
Toby
quidquid latine dictum
sit, altum viditur

[The Raven]

<OzOne> wrote in message news:sung111s59ck01oqrnenqtd421f0teg51l@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 20:28:37 +1100, "The Raven"
> <swilson150@yahoo.com.au> scribbled thusly:
>
>><OzOne> wrote in message
>>news:galg11p73tdnlpv40t3shopk10b1r33t5d@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 19:55:05 +1100, "The Raven"
>>> <swilson150@yahoo.com.au> scribbled thusly:
>>>
>>>>The idea is 60+ years old. Go take a look at the P-47 and tell me where
>>>>the
>>>>turbo was.
>>>
>>> Same story, no gearchanges in an aircraft.
>>> Rpm is set for takeoff then cruise...that's pretty much it.
>>
>>No it's not, you have to factor in air density changes as altitude varies.
>>Add to this the early turbos used in aircraft such as the P-47 had
>>manually
>>adjusted waste gates (nothing automotic).
>>
>
> Yeah, I'm afraid it is.
> Aircraft engines are not required to deliver good HP thru a wide RPM
> range so lag and distance of the turbo from the inlet are not a
> problem.
> Sorry!

Ahh, from the perspective of location only I agree. However, as for the
implied set for takeoff and cruise it was something the pilot had to
constantly monitor when changing altitudes or in combat. For steady RPM,
altitude then it's pretty much a constant setting.

> The reason the turboed was to improve performance at altitude, and yes
> waste was adjustable to ensure that boost at cruise altitude was
> optimum.

It was to ensure boost at any altitude (particularly higher altitudes) was
optimum.

>
>
> Oz1...of the 3 twins.
>
> I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.
--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** Now I will bring chaos to the world!

[The Raven]

"Toby Ponsenby" <toby@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:psgco7tq90hk.1thg7ookgiovd$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 20:01:17 +1100, The Raven wrote:
>
>> "Toby Ponsenby" <toby@privacy.net> wrote in message
>> news:1kkuj2oq1bsag$.3gp7syqwss28.dlg@40tude.net...
>>> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 17:22:52 +1100, a9x5l wrote:
>>>
>>>> When we first saw the STS turbocharger mounted near the rear axle of a
>>>> fourth-gen F-body, we had some hesitation. After all, turbos have
>>>> always
>>>> been located in the engine compartment where they can build up enough
>>>> heat
>>>> to cook a pizza while consuming precious under-hood real estate. But
>>>> then
>>>> one of the freethinkers from the office said, "Why not mount it in the
>>>> rear?" and we scrambled for answers...
>>>>
>>>> http://chevyhiperformance.com/techarticles/148_0502_turbo/
>>>>
>>>> http://www.ststurbo.com/remote_mounting___
>>>
>>> Been done with Aircraft yonks go.
>>> Thunderbolt - some Yankee P thingee - had the turbo in the fuselage
>>> behind the wing.
>>
>> P-47, turbo-supercharger way back at the tail end of the fuselage.
>>
>>> Huge fucker of a thing - the aircraft, that is, so it *was* probably
>>> placed there done for cooling and weight distribution.
>>
>> Space considerations more than anything I suspect.
>>
>>> Lockheed Lightnings had their turbos in the wings well behind the
>>> engines.
>>
>> Actually on the tail booms.
>>
>>> And the one and only Turbo Boomerang appears to have had a turbo
>>> placed well back from the engine as well.
>>
>> What tail number would that have been?
>>
>> I know two owners of Boomerangs, one being the owner of one of only two
>> airworthy examples in the world and, the other restoring the last one
>> ever
>> produced. I don't doubt the possibility that a turbo Boomerang was
>> produced
>> but neither owners have ever made mention of such a beast.
>
> Model CA14 development special.
> A46-1001 CA-14 1074 04/43 experimental development to increase
> performance of fighter at altitude; first flight 13/1/43; received by
> S.D.F. from CAC on 17/4/43; ground looped on landing 27/5/43 and
> returned to CAC for repairs; received at 1 AD from CAC 4/6/44 after
> conversion to CA-14a (see A46-103 for its involvement inthis project);
> allocated to 1 APU for trials and tests with the turbo-supercharger;
> after the war this aircraft did some work for the Meteorological
> Bureau taking high altitude weather observations; stored until 11/3/49
> then issued to DAP, struck off charge on that date.
>
> From
> <http://www.adf-serials.com/2a46.shtml>
> Check out A46-103:-)
> This A/C might have been interesting if it had gone into production in
> 1943, since from what I've read elsewhere, apparently it was a ripper
> at high altitude.
>

Much appreciate the reference, will chase it up with my Boomerang experts.
Seems like it was more a eval model than anything. As for it being good, the
primary use for the Boomerang was not for high altitudes. All the same, bet
it was a sweet sounding bird.


--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** Now I will bring chaos to the world!

[atec]

The Raven wrote:
> "Michael C" <mike@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:421859da$0$1998$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
>
>>"The Raven" <swilson150@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>>news:42185109$0$11529$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>>
>>>I'm wondering about a few things:
>>>
>>>1. Lag (must be massive)
>>>2. Extra cost of all that return intake plumbing.
>>>3. Oiling for the turbo bearings.
>>>4. Thermal efficiency.
>>
>>Some of these were addressed in the article. Lag is meant to be the same
>>because the total intake volume is the same without an intercooler.
>
>
> That might work but you'd still have lag compared to a non-intercooled
> system.
>
>
>>Oil lines are run to the turbo.
>
>
> Hmmm, I wouldn't be keen on putting so much oil line under the car where it
> might be damaged (and the related loss of oil for the engine).
didn't it say run against a rail ?
should be safe .
>
>
>>It's meant to be more efficient because the exhaust gas is colder.
>
>
> But due to the increased volume of plumbing and chance for the gasses to
> cool, you'd lose out on efficiency.
ah I wonder how you figure it drops efficiency ? (I know the loss is
marginal (and I think I know why)
Look at it another way, why do people
> use exhaust wrap to keep the heat/energy in the exhaust system?
to remove the heat from the engine bay , and they like watching the
tubes not glow white hot under full power. ?
>
>
>>The long intake acts like an intercooler and probably costs less.
>
>
> True, as long as you carefully route them. However the greater overall
> volume would also result in flow issues on sudden open/close of the
> throttle.
wrong
Takes a while to get that long column of gas to change speed etc.
which is why the volume acts as a buffered reservoir
>
>
>>I don't agree with much or any of that, it's just what they claim.
>
>
> Fair enough, it has merit for many reasons but it also has it's down sides.
cooler , quieter , less heat , only slightly more vulnerable
... tell me more
>
>

[OzOne]

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 21:39:43 +1100, "The Raven"
<swilson150@yahoo.com.au> scribbled thusly:

>>>> Same story, no gearchanges in an aircraft.
>>>> Rpm is set for takeoff then cruise...that's pretty much it.
>>>
>>>No it's not, you have to factor in air density changes as altitude varies.
>>>Add to this the early turbos used in aircraft such as the P-47 had
>>>manually
>>>adjusted waste gates (nothing automotic).
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, I'm afraid it is.
>> Aircraft engines are not required to deliver good HP thru a wide RPM
>> range so lag and distance of the turbo from the inlet are not a
>> problem.
>> Sorry!
>
>Ahh, from the perspective of location only I agree. However, as for the
>implied set for takeoff and cruise it was something the pilot had to
>constantly monitor when changing altitudes or in combat. For steady RPM,
>altitude then it's pretty much a constant setting.

Yeah, like I said, aircraft are not required to deliver good HP thru a
wide RPM range.
Throttles are never slammed open like a car is subject to during
driving but instead are moved slowly and progressively to the required
setting, add to that the low RPM used (around 2500rpm) and you have a
perfect scenario for turbocharging.
>
>> The reason the turboed was to improve performance at altitude, and yes
>> waste was adjustable to ensure that boost at cruise altitude was
>> optimum.
>
>It was to ensure boost at any altitude (particularly higher altitudes) was
>optimum.

Yep, you'd be correct there, and with a ceiling of 42,000' it would be
easy to overboost at sea level.
>>
>>
>> Oz1...of the 3 twins.
>>
>> I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.



Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.

[Scotty]

(snip)
"> But due to the increased volume of plumbing and chance for the gasses to
> cool, you'd lose out on efficiency. Look at it another way, why do people
> use exhaust wrap to keep the heat/energy in the exhaust system?
(snip)


Umm cause ya don't want temps to high decreasing airmass under the hood.
Cold air good, hot air bad.