P337 Intercooler Flight Test Comparison

[SkyKing]

Bob,

Sorry that chart was so BIG... guess I need to learn how to make it "fit the window".

If it wasn't readily apparent after looking at the AA Intercooler Power Settings, as you can discern, the basic idea is to remember three power settings for any altitude based on 55%, 65% or 75%... e.g., it's always going to be 33" and 2400 RPM for 75%; 31" and 2300 RPM for 65%; and, 27" and 2300 RPM for 55% -- and their corresponding fuel flows, i.e., 88, 76 and 64 for Best Power (50 ROP), and if at or below 65%, peak EGT's resulting in 67 or 57 PPH respectfully.

Now, with respect to Cessna's POH... the chart for a stock airplane seems to have finite differences in BHP and Total PPH for a given altitude, ISA. So, let's just pick 10,000' and 18,000' for comparison and arbitrarily use 2400 RPM and 33".

At 10,000', Cessna POH shows 72% Best Power (50 ROP) with a fuel burn of 153 Total PPH for 2400 RPM and 33", and a TAS of 184 Knots. With the intercoolers the chart shows this same power setting giving 75% Best Power (50 ROP) and a fuel burn of 176 Total PPH, or 23 additional PPH (3.83 gallons per hour). BUT, the airplane equipped with the intercoolers is giving 195 KTAS instead of 184 KTAS as in the POH.

AHhhh, but drop the intercooled airplane down to 65% at the same altitude (30"/2400 RPM) where you can run lean peak EGT and your fuel burn is now 134 Total PPH with no penalty in airspeed... your speed is the same as the stock airplane at its slightly higher power setting... 184 KTAS ... and beating the stock airplane fuel flow by 19 PPH, or 3.16 gallons per hour. This latter figure isn't quite comparing apples to apples, because if you compare to the stock airplane's comparative per cent of power setting, the difference is only about a gallon per hour. So, it depends on how you want to skew the numbers.

OK, for 18,000' the stock airplane Cessna POH shows 71% Best Power (50 ROP) being developed with 33" and 2400 RPM, with a fuel burn of 150 Total PPH, resulting in 198 KTAS. With the AA intercoolers for the same altitude, 2400 RPM and 33" nets out 75% power and a fuel burn of 176 Total PPH- but you might need an extra 50 RPM spool depending on ISA conditions to keep MP steady, turbos spooled and pressurization happy, so running 32.5" and 2450 nets the same 75%. Again fuel burn will be 176 Total PPH, but speed will be 211 KTAS instead of the stock airplane's 198 KTAS, a distinct 13 knot advantage. Dropping the intercooled airplane down to 65% power results in 202 KTAS, and a fuel burn of 134 Total PPH, which is still better than the stock airplane at 150 Total PPH for 71% in addition to a slight speed benefit.

We very rarely run 75%... and unless we're going long, it really isn't economical to climb to the teens... but we like the pressurization and the turbos for mountain flying, and so we usually run 55% to 65%. At these power settings we can run lean and at peak EGT, thereby grabbing the fuel flow savings and also gaining speed over the stock airplane, at least at the higher altitudes.

If we run around local, say 5000' for a hop, we generally run 55% power which gets us down into the 114 Total PPH range, or 19 Gallons per hour and generally gives us about 160-165 KTAS on ISA days. Besides, we like to enjoy the ride, and these lower power settings are easier on the pocketbook and the noise levels are reduced too.

I beleive the intercoolers were probably the best investment on the P337 as it enables the engines to run cooler and promotes longer engine life. And there's virtually no maintenance to this item, as long as the rubber connection hoses maintain their integrity. Above all, as with any add-on equipment, if someone was in the market for a P337, I'd strongly suggest getting one with the goodies that you want already installed, as aftermarket installs now would be QUITE expensive, almost to the point of being cost-prohibitive. (Same with boots, RSTOL, etc.) And speaking of RSTOL, last time we checked it was around $14K+ for Robertson.

Well, there you have my nickel.

SkyKing

[JamesC]

Skyking very much for the intercooler information. Has AA published takeoff power recommendations ?
Do you have any other numbers from them other than the two tables you posted?
Thanks again

[Walter Atkinson]

Gentlemen:

Based on the hard data rather than people's opinions, there is a tremendous amount of misinformation in this thread concerning HP determination and intercoolers. I will try to address as many of the items as I can remember form the read:

1) HP when ROP is NOT affected to any meaningful degree by fuel flow in the usable mixture ranges. HP when ROP is a function ONLY of mass air flow. By definition, any ROP mixture has extra fuel already. Adding or subtracting fuel as long as one stays ROP does not change mass airflow, so FF has no effect on HP…. until one gets so rich as to slow the rate of combustion, changing the thetaPP and reducing HP to the crankshaft. The HP difference between being barely ROP and as much as 150-175dF ROP is extremely difficult to measure and would be within the error in reading an airspeed indicator. We can measure the differences on the test stand and they are less than a HP or two.

2) Best Power is found at 75-80dF ROP, not 50dF ROP… no matter what any POH might say. These are the laws of physics.

3) Best economy is not found at Peak EGT, no matter what any POH might say. This is not open for debate. This, again, is a function of the laws of physics. Best Economy is found at BSFC(min) between about 20 and 90dF LOP, depending on the power being produced. At very high power settings, Best Economy is at about 90dF LOP. At very low power settings it can be as close to peak as about 20dF LOP.

4) Intercoolers are very important and helpful in operating a TC engine. They reduce the IAT and widen detonation margins. This results in lower CHTs in many situations. The increase in O2 allows for more mass airflow when ROP and, therefore, more power, albeit at a higher FF at the same ROP mixture. Best Power with an intercooler will require more FF to match the increased mass airflow.

5) An intercooler when operating LOP will allow one to be either further LOP with cooler CHTs at the same FF or push more fuel LOP for more power with the same CHTs.

6) HP LOP is a function of FF ONLY. Mass air flow plays no part as long as the mixture is LOP. For the engines you are operating 13.75 x FF = HP. Period. MP and RPM play no part as long as the mixture is LOP. So, a setting of 26/2400/13gph produces the exact same HP as 28/2450/13gph as long as both mixtures are LOP.

7) Intercooler recommendations to reduce MP 2" with an intercooler installed are mathematically flawed. While it is true that the intercooler results in more O2 and therefore greater mass airflow and the resultant increased HP, what they forgot to include was the increased exhaust back pressure which negatively impacts the volumetric efficiency of the cylinders. These factor offset on another so closely as to be a wash. There is, therefore NO scientific reason to reduce MP with an intercooler.

I will post a paper by George Braly on Intercoolers in the next post. If anyone would like any of the above comments expanded upon, I will be happy to do so.

[Walter Atkinson]

From George Braly:

INTERCOOLER EXPLANATION:

For a year, I spent a good portion of my time re-engineering an intercooler installation and obtaining FAA approval for the changes. Very careful instrumentation and measurement. I have more recently done more of that with a different engine on the engine test stand (see www.engineteststand.com).

I learned a lot. I am a strong supporter of intercoolers, so some of what I am going to say may sound strange at first.

So, here goes: Frankly most of the conventional wisdom on this subject - - like a lot of the now famous LOP/ROP discussions - - is simply not true.

The practical application results in an outcome that is rather different than everybody anticipates. It is largely a myth that 30" of MP AFTER the intercooler gets you more HP than 30" of MP BEFORE adding the intercooler. In fact, a poorly executed intercooler installation can - - and often does -- result in LESS horsepower at sea level than the same engine without the intercooler.

I don't know who started the whole theory of de-rating an engine after an intercooler, but it sure as the devil was not somebody who was measuring the actual engine torque - accurately - - rather, they were just following the theory as you outlined it and making the calculations, etc. (And, yes, I have heard a story about one after market intercooler outfit that claims to have put a torque meter on before issuing the reduced MP instructions based on that result... but until I see the data, I will have a very hard time with that notion.)

The big problem is that in the euphoria over the large and very beneficial drop in Induction Air Temperatures (IAT) that one gets with an intercooler, the "engineers" forget all about something else: How much of the "good stuff" (ie, good, cold, high density air) you can get into the cylinder on each intake stroke - - also depends on how much of the BAD STUFF (ie,
exhaust products) you got out of the cylinder on the previous exhaust stroke.

The ratio of the new "good stuff" to the theoretical maximum "good stuff" is called the cylinder volumetric efficiency Ve. Normally aspirated engine values are up around 85 to 92% of the cylinder's displacement - - although with turbocharged engines, the number will substantially exceed 100%.

When you add an intercooler to a turbocharged engine - - and leave the MP constant - -, you place a restriction in the intake plumbing. That means that the compressor discharge pressure is now two or three (or 4 or 5 or 6 in one case) inches of Hg higher than the wide open throttle MP!!!

In order to generate that extra pressure, the compressor has to work harder. And that means that the turbo has to work harder. And that means that the wastegate is closed a bit more. And THAT means the exhaust back pressure increases and that reduces the cylinder volumetric efficiency.

Result? The improved number of molecules you get into the cylinder due to the denser air is just about perfectly offset by the reduced Ve. Thus, no net increase in useful airflow through the cylinder. And the result of that is no net increase in horsepower at the same MP.

Now... having said THAT - - in my view, it is almost criminal for anybody to operate a turbocharged engine without an intercooler.

There are excellent old SAE research papers that show a HUGE improvement in the detonation tolerance of these engines by use of even a modestly efficient intercooler. These improvements are not trivial. They are substantial.

Installing an intercooler means that you are very very much less likely to inadvertently cause detonation during a moment of inattention during a busy high power climb in an IFR environment - - when you accidentally fail to have the mixture rich enough. Lots of other benefits.

For the same reasons, it lowers peak cylinder pressures substantially and that seriously promotes reduced exhaust valve temperatures and greater valve and cylinder longevity.

Last, and this is something almost nobody appreciates, adding an intercooler results in much better fuel atomization by your fuel injectors during high power operation.

Like I said, the "conventional" wisdom on this subject is seriously flawed.

The benefits of intercoolers are sort of over promoted for the wrong reasons and vastly under promoted for the right reasons all at the same time.

They are generally a good investment.


Regards, George Braly - Tornado Alley Turbo & GAMI

[Walter Atkinson]

HP calculation ROP (mass airflow):

(100+(((RPM-maxRPM)/100*2.5)+((MP-maxMP)*3.5)))/100*maxHP.


HP calculation LOP (FF):

NA engines = 14.9 * FF = HP

TC engines = 13.75 * FF = HP

[CaptainRod]

Excellent posts, Walter. Thank you.

[JamesC]

Walter I really appreciate your input - LOP ops certainly become easier given the simpler relationship between fuel flow and HP in that regime. Much safer than choosing CHT targets particularly at cold altitudes.
For ROP your formula leads to 100 % power at max RPM and MP.
However AA placards 35.3 " MP for takeoff power - was this based on HP dyno measurements or math ?
Even if there is exhaust back pressure, could the peak cylinder PSI's still not be too high at 37 "MP full rich with the extra O2 from the colder denser intercooler air?
Thanks very much.