I always enjoy your sense of humor @wesw. I’ve also been disabled for many years and am in constant pain, so I feel for you. Pain is no fun, and pain meds don’t work all that well. And have too many side effects. It is very helpful having places like this on days when getting out of bed is difficult. Thank you all for your contributions.
“While a Turbo Charger may be the same as a Super Charger.”
I’ll agree that there is some overlap, some similarities, and they serve similar purposes
But they’re not the same
While I may not be able to explain things as well as mean joe, I know that a belt driven roots supercharger isn’t the same as a turbocharger
@meanjoe75fan
We’re good
No need to change anything
Perhaps you can explain the similarities and differences of supercharger versus turbocharger
So let’s see if I got this right . . .
A piston engine aircraft engine may very well be supercharged
But a piston engine automobile engine can be either naturally aspirated, supercharged, or turbocharged . . . or in a really high performance application, it may be supercharged and turbocharged
“A piston engine aircraft engine may very well be supercharged”
This was common in WW2 using centrifugal supercharging.
Cessna has a Skylane with a turbocharged diesel engine that burns Jet-A.
I can certainly sympathize with someone who has physical problems wesw. I’m banged up pretty good so I have to rely on too much aspirin and Tylenol along with a surly attitude to be able to keep going through pain and muscle spasms every day; and often without much success.
Sincerely wishing you the best. 
Turbochargers and superchargers are different things, different ways of boosting pressure, and they have different characteristics. Superchargers may be a turbine design (like TorqueStorm superchargers) or “roots-type” with opposing-lobed impellars, but they’re all crank driven. Turbochargers are all exhaust driven. They have in the past been tried in combination to take advantage of the attributes of each (or to compensate for the weaknesses of each), but they’re different animals.
Meanjoe, I think you’re confusing turbine type superchargers with turbochargers.
I wasn’t following this thread when Wes’ disability was questioned. It’s just as well. I would not have been my usual pleasant self. Anyone who makes comments like that needs help. They’re using a personal attack to feel in control when they think they’re losing a technical argument. I have long felt that personal attacks are totally unwarranted, counterproductive, and simply a manifestation of serious emotional problems. When directed at me, I try to simply ignore them and not take them personally. I don’t always succeed, but I try. Refusal to acknowledge a personal comment renders it meaningless… but it sure pisses the attacker off.
In the future, let’s all remember to stay focused on the debate at hand, and not attack the person. We’ll have a much better forum.
TSM:
No, a supercharger is ANY means of providing a intake “charge” in excess of atmospheric 29.92"Hg. A “turbine” (turbo) is a device in the exhaust stream, that converts exhaust energy into motive force. There are axial-flow turbines, and centrifigul-flow turbines.
Now, if you have an air compressor (supercharger) that is powered off of the exhaust flow (turbine)…you have a turbo-supercharger (turbo for short).
It’s like “rectangle” vs “square.” A rectangle is a shape with 4 90-degree angles and parallel sides…a square is the special case of a rectangle in which all sides are of equal length. Since one would almost always call a square a square, it sounds odd to call it a rectangle, and an unsophisticated person just might say, “Hey, 't’ain’t no rectangle…that’s a square!” Yet the fact remains, every square is indeed a rectangle…and a parallelogram, for that matter.
Cliff’s notes:
- Anything that boosts intake air pressure over ambient is a supercharger.
- When the motive force to drive the supercharger comes from an exhaust turbine, it’s called a “turbo-supercharger.”
- Except for aviators, the above terminology is somewhat archaic, and is more commonly called a “turbocharger.”
Now for the disability stuff…I’ve explained it once, Cliff’s notes:
- About a month ago, db4690 said something about his back hurting.
- While on my phone, I completely by accident bumped the “disagree” button.
- db4690 called me out re: above.
- I apologized, explained, and fixed the rep.
- db4690 AGAIN called me out in this post.
- I added something snarky about “quit faking that back,” an inside reference to the last time he called me out…not in any way doubting his back pain.
- db4690 took offense to (perceived) me making fun of his disability, and wes, being sympatatico, chimed in too.
- I said, “oops, my bad, did not mean that personally, will delete if necessary.”
- Everybody made up.
(at which point, you tuned in). Note that NOBODY went after wes, and I did not intentionally go after db4690…that’s just classless).
Everybody OK now???
Well, joe, than I guess the rest of the world must be wrong.
I have nothing more to add.
well…not the aviation world, at least.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_IO-550
Look closely at the TSIO-550 series. That’s T(urbo)S(upercharged)I(njected)O(pposed)550(cu in).
Each and every one of those engines has a turbo; none of them has a supercharger (as you would term it, TSM).
I’m sorry that you just don’t see it, but as they say, “you’re entitled to your own opinion; not your own facts.” Call up Teledyne Continental Motors and ask them if they have a belt-driven supercharger.
I flew Bonanzas for 2 years straight in training behind a TCM IO-550. The upgraded versoins (that I never did get to fly, darn it!) had TSIO-550 engines in them. In ground school they darn near made us field strip those engines; if a TSIO-550 had a belt-driven super, I for damn sure would have known about it!
For what it’s worth . . .
I can’t speak for wes, but I’m “over it”
I didn’t initially see mean joe’s little smirk or smiley face, or whatever it was. That is why I reacted the way I did.
After going back and seeing it, it put things in a rather different context
I agree about one thing . . . the fact that a certain type of supercharger and a turbocharger both have a turbine can make things confusing
In any case, I can’t explain things well enough to argue my standpoint
From your link:
“A turbocharger, or turbo (colloquialism), from Latin “turbo” (“spinning top”),[1] is a turbine-driven forced induction device”.
Note: a TURBINE DRIVEN device, not a crankshaft driven device.
If you refuse to believe your own links, then I give up.
By the way, this is a car forum, not an aviation forum.
All you’ve done is show a belt driven supercharger is not a turbocharger. You did NOT show a turbocharger is not a supercharger.
Just because a rectangle is not necessarily a square, it does NOT follow that a square is not a rectangle.
Just because a generator is not necessarily an alternator, it does NOT follow that an alternator is not a generator.
Just because a supercharger is not necessarily a turbocharger, it does NOT follow that a turbocharger is not a supercharger.
Is that straightforward enough for you?
By the way, this is a car forum, not an aviation forum.Gee, I was just reponding to db4690's post, where HE brought up how "certain airplanes are both turbocharged and supercharged." If you like, you can share your umbrage with him for taking this thread in that direction...all I ever did is correct some factually false information--and yet, they always shoot the messenger, don't they?
I have nothing more to add.I'll bet you can probably find some Nomex pants that are flame-resistant...that's auto (racing) related, isn't it? ;-)
@Mean,why did they do away with the V-tailed Bonanza,got a person around here that used to use one on a grass strip-Kevin
deleted by poster
wow. thanks guys. I m sorry for getting personal. but your responses lifted my heart.
I just learned thru all this that the way I previously judged people was all wrong. you never know what another person has had to deal with.
it has improved me mentally and made me kinder.
oh, yeah, I m not mad at anyone . I just think it was a misunderstanding, or perhaps an opportunity to learn. I don t think anything was mean spirited at all.
now that I ve rested a couple days I m ready to tackle this stupid/wonderful jeep again.
… and no need to take it easy on me. when I m wrong I m wrong.
another thing I ve learned the last couple of years is that I am often wrong.