f7ben

The first turbo application was an airplane. You’ve been owned and hsr is permaowned

Linda like when you decide to argue with me and then get ruthlessly pummeled across two forums for day fafo indeed

It’s more than that

Initially they did charge the engines if you would read the history, normalizing didn’t come into play until they sought reliability for general aviation.

That asshole was looking to provoke a response and get a payday.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/history-turbocharging-hassan-rizvi

Gottlieb Daimler and Rudolf Diesel developed the concept of turbocharging in the late 19th century to boost engine performance. The very first exhaust-driven turbocharger patent was filed in 1905 for a marine engine. This was patented by Alfred Buchi, who was a Swiss mechanical engineer. The world’s first turbo set-up was not installed in a car or a sea vessel at all. On the contrary, the technology debuted for aircrafts. Sanford Alexander Moss installed the very first turbocharger on a Liberty V12 aircraft engine. Soon, American aviation followed up by installing turbos on their own airplanes. As is the case with turbochargers, this new generation of boosted aircraft could reach new heights without suffering an enormous drop in engine performance due to far less air density at high altitudes.

Nope , seems like you got PWND again retard. Sorry

V12 Liberty airplane The first turbochargers were not applied to marine or automotive: they were applied to airplanes. Around 1918, The GE engineer, Sanford Alexander Moss, applied a turbocharger to a V12 Liberty airplane and subsequently turbocharging was applied to many American airplanes[1].

Obviously also a retarded asshole lol

The dude is a retarded asshole

No , increasing rates hp is different than maintaining rated hp

I think he’s better than many thought. He isn’t a pro and likely wouldn’t ever make it in pro boxing. If this was a real fight he would likely be hurt seriously. Tyson is an absolute fucking beast

They can be similar or different and they certainly provide some of the same function. The distinction lies in whether the system increases rated power or maintains is. Not hard to understand

Incorrect , there are faa approved aftermarket systems that both normalize and turbocharge. Two very different things. If you knew anything about aviation it takes a decade to get any modification approved for general aviation

Turbo normalized and turbo charged are two different things

As soon as Tom admits he was wrong I will apologize to him. It hacked me off he wouldn’t say a word about Glen Halls tune because he knows who pays his bills and what Glen Hall meant to the sport.

No , it’s not

Geeze , that’s exactly the system skidoo employed. Normalized, not charged

Yes - that is essentially what turbo-normalized means - it doesn't boost higher than sea level pressure (waste gates fully open on the ground) but it maintains that sea level pressure all the way to the critical altitude - in the case of the SR22TN that critical altitude is higher than the airplane's certificated ceiling (FL250). The engine, in essence operates the same at any altitude in the SR22TN. The newer SR22T system boosts a bit above sea level so it is not purely turbo-normalizing. https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/turbo-performance-question.82117/

Forget two strokes and tell me about 4 stroke turbos that don’t have a powerband. Tell me why 7900 is better than 8900.

Tell me your experience with them. I can’t wait. Stupid know nothing fucking retard TURBOCHARGED NORMALIZED HERRR DERRR DERRRR what a fucking idiot

Tell me how a two stroke with an expansion chamber dictating rpm range relates to a 4 stroke turbo that is happy anywhere from 7500-9000 rpm Are you seriously fucking retarded?