• NC Software is proud to announce the release of APDL - Airline Pilot Logbook version 10.0. Click here to view APDL on the Apple App store and install now.

super charged vrs turbo charged

Bernoulli

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 4, 2003
Posts
227
Total Time
some
What is the difference between an engine that is super charged and one that is turbo charged? Thanks in advance for all constructive comments.
 

bigD

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2002
Posts
2,020
Total Time
4.9e17
Because the supercharger is being driven by the engine - there's a bit of power being used to drive it. Therefore, turbos typically provide more additional power than superchargers do.

The flip side of this is that because the supercharger is directly connected, it doesn't suffer from the lag that turbos do. On a turbo, the turbine needs to spool up, which results in a bit of lag before it begins providing boost.
 

VNugget

suck squeeze bang blow
Joined
Dec 4, 2002
Posts
809
Total Time
1700
Also note that sometimes you'll see "supercharged" referring to either, especially in older writing.
 

EagleRJ

Are we there yet?
Joined
Nov 27, 2001
Posts
1,490
Total Time
5800
If you're talking about aircraft engines, turbocharging is more common than supercharging- probably because the supercharger's drive belt is one more thing to break in an airplane (there are gear-driven designs too, but it's still more complex). There are several types of adding power in an aircraft:

-Turbo-normalizing- Using a turbocharger to restore the induction charge to sea-level pressure as the aircraft climbs.

-Turbo-supercharging- Using a turbocharger to boost the induction charge above sea-level pressure.

-Turbo-compounding- Not really supercharging at all, but using an exhaust-driven turbine that is connected to the crankshaft by a gearbox. Used to recover lost energy in the exhaust and return it to the crankshaft as additional power.


As previously mentioned, turbochargers and superchargers each have their strengths and weaknesses. You should see some of the turbo/super throwdowns that get going on automotive message boards! They can be more spirited than the PFT/Mesa/Boeing/Airbus/religion discussions on here!
 

crash-proof

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 10, 2002
Posts
782
Total Time
Wasted
EagleRJ said:
-Turbo-compounding- Not really supercharging at all, but using an exhaust-driven turbine that is connected to the crankshaft by a gearbox. Used to recover lost energy in the exhaust and return it to the crankshaft as additional power.

From my knowledgethe Wright 3350 was the only motor to use the turbocompund method, but were there others? Smaller GA engines? To me it makes sense, why throw away that exaust when you could use it to help regenerate power. I could see it being used in a smaller continental or lycoming type motor.
 

bocefus

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 15, 2004
Posts
395
Total Time
6969
"there are gear-driven designs too, but it's still more complex"

Perhaps, but gear driven superchargers on aircraft have proven to be much more reliable than exhaust driven turboshargers
 

troy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2002
Posts
528
Total Time
~500
don't forget that when using an exhaust restricting device (turbo), the back pressure increases in the exhaust and combustion chamber resulting in a slight hp reduction. the turbo makes up for the difference. I've never heard of the turbo compund method, I wonder how much is recovered?
 

FN FAL

Freight Dawgs Rule
Joined
Dec 17, 2003
Posts
8,573
Total Time
7,000+
VNugget said:
Also note that sometimes you'll see "supercharged" referring to either, especially in older writing.
You'll find that out if you ever have to get TSIO-470's worked on...they just about have to dig out some Egyptian stone tablets and dust them off, just to get a clue.
 

wingnutt

...recognize this?
Joined
Mar 31, 2002
Posts
1,077
Total Time
+30yrs
...superchargers are good, but turbos rock :)
 

A1FlyBoy

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2002
Posts
682
Total Time
Enough
The flip side of this is that because the supercharger is directly connected, it doesn't suffer from the lag that turbos do. On a turbo, the turbine needs to spool up, which results in a bit of lag before it begins providing boost.


Sounds like you've driven a Saab...
 

avbug

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2001
Posts
7,602
Total Time
n/a
If you're talking about aircraft engines, turbocharging is more common than supercharging- probably because the supercharger's drive belt is one more thing to break in an airplane (there are gear-driven designs too, but it's still more complex).


Most aircraft engine supercharging, virtually all of them, are engine driven at the back of the accessory case. Typically superchargers use a clutch to vary between high and low blower positions.

Turbo-compounding- Not really supercharging at all, but using an exhaust-driven turbine that is connected to the crankshaft by a gearbox. Used to recover lost energy in the exhaust and return it to the crankshaft as additional power.

The turbocompound R3350 utilized a supercharger as well as power recovery turbines, which provided drive back to the engine mechanically through a fluid coupling, so yes, it really is supercharged...the compound in turbocompound is supercharging plus the PRT's.
 

crash-proof

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 10, 2002
Posts
782
Total Time
Wasted
avbug said:
The turbocompound R3350 utilized a supercharger as well as power recovery turbines, which provided drive back to the engine mechanically through a fluid coupling, so yes, it really is supercharged...the compound in turbocompound is supercharging plus the PRT's.

Man those mofo's were complex weren't they? I'm suprised they didn't have 1 flight eng. for each motor. From what I understand pax in those days weren't phased at all when a shutdown occured. I also read that the exaust developed quite a bit of thrust.
 

BD King

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 9, 2004
Posts
407
Total Time
14000
In line with the subject matter, if you ever fly, especially a 400 Series Cessna that still has Turbo Charged on the side or on the cowls, watch the lineman very closely when refueling.

www.bdkingpress.com
 

A Squared

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
3,006
Total Time
11000
BD King said:
In line with the subject matter, if you ever fly, especially a 400 Series Cessna that still has Turbo Charged on the side or on the cowls, watch the lineman very closely when refueling.

Seems like I'd heard that the "turbo system" that Cessna put on the cowls was required to be covered or removed by an Airworthiness Directive. Anyone know if this was true?
 

ackattacker

Client 9
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Posts
2,125
Total Time
hah!
The main difference is that supercharging is kind of 70's cool (think Road Warrior) while turbo-boost is definately 80's cool (think Michael Knight and K.I.T.T.)
 

avbug

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2001
Posts
7,602
Total Time
n/a
Man those mofo's were complex weren't they? I'm suprised they didn't have 1 flight eng. for each motor. From what I understand pax in those days weren't phased at all when a shutdown occured. I also read that the exaust developed quite a bit of thrust.


No more complex than any other round engine. They were perhaps the highest evoloution of the radial engine. Operating the 3350 is no more complex than any other engine...certainly they don't demand the attention of a flight engineer of their own accord. I don't recall ever hearing that the exaust put out any significant amount of thrust, though I'm sure it may impart something. If that were the case, the exhaust would probably be angled back to take advantage of the "thrust."

If by passengers not being "phased" you mean that engine failures were common, that's partially true. Anybody who has flown round engines very much understands why I often say that an engine failure is not necessarily an emergency. It's a routine abnormal condition, and doesn't necessarily warrant much excitement.
 

A Squared

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
3,006
Total Time
11000
avbug said:
I don't recall ever hearing that the exaust put out any significant amount of thrust, though I'm sure it may impart something. If that were the case, the exhaust would probably be angled back to take advantage of the "thrust."

The exhaust stacks on the DC-6 point straight back, ostensibley to take advantage of exhaust thrust, according to one of my Douglas manuals. I don't have the book in front of me, but is seems like I recall they were claiming to recover several hundred horspower that way.
 

TrafficInSight

mmmm.... doooonuuuut.
Joined
Mar 14, 2004
Posts
613
Total Time
350
A Squared said:
The exhaust stacks on the DC-6 point straight back, ostensibley to take advantage of exhaust thrust, according to one of my Douglas manuals. I don't have the book in front of me, but is seems like I recall they were claiming to recover several hundred horspower that way.

I'd love to see that part of the book. I remain fairly skeptical about that particular claim.
 

TrafficInSight

mmmm.... doooonuuuut.
Joined
Mar 14, 2004
Posts
613
Total Time
350
A Squared said:
Seems like I'd heard that the "turbo system" that Cessna put on the cowls was required to be covered or removed by an Airworthiness Directive. Anyone know if this was true?

Don't know if it was required but the turbo Aztec at my school says "Charged" on the cowling.

No word on wether it's paid off or not yet ;)
 
Top