Intercooling: Superchargers & Turbochargers

[Hobbes]

Turbos, scroll type superchargers and centrifugal superchargers give very different driving characteristics to the cars they are fitted to, not to mention the relative sizes of the various blower designs. It's very difficult to compare like with like of course as it would cost a fortune to change the blowers over, but some manufacturers have done it on their production lines, Volkswagen being one who've used both turbos and Rootes type blowers in various Golfs and Polos at times. IIRC VW had at least one engine with both a turbo AND a Rootes blower fitted at the same time!

Yep, that's the 1.4 TSI with 160 shp. VW also used the oddball G-lader in the 1990s:

[eatthis]

my car has a centrifugal supercharger and its driven off the main seprentine belt
i much prefer them to turbo chargers and roots/screw type superchargers it just drives so much nicer

Does it indeed? What sort of car is that then?

Turbos, scroll type superchargers and centrifugal superchargers give very different driving characteristics to the cars they are fitted to, not to mention the relative sizes of the various blower designs. It's very difficult to compare like with like of course as it would cost a fortune to change the blowers over, but some manufacturers have done it on their production lines, Volkswagen being one who've used both turbos and Rootes type blowers in various Golfs and Polos at times. IIRC VW had at least one engine with both a turbo AND a Rootes blower fitted at the same time!

its a 3.2l vr6 golf (called r32) with a rotrex centrifugal blower on it.
the engine makes decent torque (relative to the smaller turbo motors that are so popular) at any rpm
but as the revs rise so does the boost and therefore the torque its incredibly smooth power delivery and theres no lag because its alway spinning regardless of throttle position.

it doesnt make the huge mid range torque that turbos do but i much prefer it and 400 lb ft isnt exactly weak anyway.
smooth torque delivery also means it doesnt eat gearboxes like the turbo builds do

[Librarian]

OK! I know the P-38 had no visible exhaust 'row' because it had an external turbosupercharger. Apart from this example is there any other reason available for a single inline-engined aircraft to not have a visible exhaust 'row'?

[PR19_Kit]

OK! I know the P-38 had no visible exhaust 'row' because it had an external turbosupercharger. Apart from this example is there any other reason available for a single inline-engined aircraft to not have a visible exhaust 'row'?

You could always invent one, this being WhiffWorld. 

How about an in-line engine aircraft with a remote turbo like the P-47? That exhausted from the 'bump' under the rear fuselage but it's not immediately obvious that it is the exhaust, but it I guess wouldn't have to be a radial engine.

[Hobbes]

OK! I know the P-38 had no visible exhaust 'row' because it had an external turbosupercharger. Apart from this example is there any other reason available for a single inline-engined aircraft to not have a visible exhaust 'row'?

Flame shrouds (reduce visibility at night)
Noise reduction (even a straight pipe is quieter than a row of exhaust stubs)
Turbocharger
Turbocompound (i.e. an exhaust turbine driving the crankshaft)

[zenrat]

OK! I know the P-38 had no visible exhaust 'row' because it had an external turbosupercharger. Apart from this example is there any other reason available for a single inline-engined aircraft to not have a visible exhaust 'row'?

Steam engine with a closed system re-condenser.  Steam generated by nuclear pile.

[NARSES2]

OK! I know the P-38 had no visible exhaust 'row' because it had an external turbosupercharger. Apart from this example is there any other reason available for a single inline-engined aircraft to not have a visible exhaust 'row'?

Steam engine with a closed system re-condenser.  Steam generated by nuclear pile.

Or lignite as the German's designed and tested one for aircraft use.

[James W.]

OK! I know the P-38 had no visible exhaust 'row' because it had an external turbosupercharger. Apart from this example is there any other reason available for a single inline-engined aircraft to not have a visible exhaust 'row'?

You could always invent one, this being WhiffWorld. 

How about an in-line engine aircraft with a remote turbo like the P-47? That exhausted from the 'bump' under the rear fuselage but it's not immediately obvious that it is the exhaust, but it I guess wouldn't have to be a radial engine.

Yeah, he did specify "inline", AFAIR, there aren't any successful candidates among WW 2 era fighters* that did,& those inline ejectors were worth speed..
.. certainly when engine exhaust stubs were shrouded by 'flame dampers' - for specific night flying ops  - it cost speed..

* Chrysler V16 powered XP-47H flew, but I am not certain if the intended turbo set-up was fully incorporated..

Edit: a further advantage held by liquid-cooled engines was that liquid-cooled inter-coolers were also much more compact than air-cooled types..