Aerovee turbo

[Bryan Cotton]

I think the turbo idea is cool, but not so cool that I would buy one. If I envisioned a lot if XC I might think differently. Simplicity is what drew me to Sonex.

[Rynoth]

I'm accustomed to the idea of max takeoff/emergency power vs max continuous power. To be honest, in my dual t-flight in the aerovee, I felt that fully loaded, the Sonex is minimally powered with an Aerovee. Sufficient, yes, but just that. I'm very curious to what sort of schedule Aeroconversions comes up with in terms of max continuous power for the turbo, as I'm sure they're not designing it to run full boost 100% of the time. I am very much in favor of an engine design and schedule that flat-rates the power output, which is to say that the engine is capable of more power at lower density altitudes, but is flat-rated to a lower power setting for reliability.

I don't see turbochargers as being beneficial only at the teens and higher altitudes, even flat rated they increase power output at any density altitude above standard day MSL. In terms of complexity, some would probably argue with me, but I see a turbocharger as a lot less complex than fuel injection.

Time will tell. I also chose the Sonex for its simplicity, but also for how this simplicity made the project affordable for myself. For me, the current appearance of the turbo aerovee project represents an acceptable decrease in simplicity for a modest increase in performance and an equally modest decrease in affordability.

[Fastcapy]

-----

[MichaelFarley56]

To be honest, in my dual t-flight in the aerovee, I felt that fully loaded, the Sonex is minimally powered with an Aerovee. Sufficient, yes, but just that.

By no means do I want to speak for the factory, but personally, I feel you hit the nail right on the head. I believe this is a primary reason why the turbo package is being developed. A lot of people have voiced the same thoughts, as well as the desire for an inexpensive engine package that produces 100 h.p. I don't know if it would be possible to increase the cubic inch size of the AeroVee itself, so a very low boost turbo may be the easiest way to get that extra 15-20% the factory (and customers) are hoping for.

Just as others have stated, my request isn't to have more cruise speed (not that I would complain though...); rather, it would be nice to have a little more climb rate, especially at max takeoff weights. Those 98 square feet of wing can only lift so much, and that little 54" prop can only pull so much, which results in climb rates being a little weak at heavy weights. Don't get me wrong; I love my airplane and know that no airplane will ever be perfect, but just a little extra power on climb would be nice!

And yes, before things are finalized I'm sure a lot of questions will need to be answered. How much does it weigh? Is it reliable? Fuel burns, availability, temperature management and of course the cost will all need to be addressed. That being said, if the factory says it's safe and available, I'll be doing everything possible to get that kit! Once again I give the factory all the credit in the world for listening to customer requests, and working hard to fulfill those requests!

Time will tell on this one...hopefully we hear something soon!

[SvingenB]

I guess 100 HP on take off, an increase of 20-30% will mean a lot in terms of climb velocity and take off distance.

[daleandee]

*