Why is turbocharging preferred over the engine driven supercharger on aircrafts?

Question

Why is turbocharging preferred over the engine driven supercharger on aircrafts?

Answer 1

Because a supercharger is belt driven. So if that belt snaps, you lose your engine power. A turbo-charger is exhaust driven, so even if it fails, you still have some power. the FAA would never certify a plane with a super-charger.

Answer 2

Turbochargers are lighter and much simpler mechanically than mechanical superchargers.  Also, they use power from the exhaust gasses that would otherwise be wasted, and so they do not subtract power from the main engine.

Answer 3

I'd go with Ledgend and add that it is also pretty simple to insert the turbo in th exhaust system and route it back to the intake manifold.  Whereas a supercharger requires a whole newly designed case for the impeller.

Answer 4

Turbo takes NOTHING from the engine, Superchargers are engine driven so take power from the engine

Answer 5

Turbochargers add what is considered 'free' horsepower, because they use exhaust energy that would otherwise be lost to add power to the engine; Superchargers have a constant parasitic draw, since they drive off the crankshaft, that is more prevalent at high RPM's...The other advantage is, that the amount of boost is not totally dependent on engine speed..so the power will be more linear, and readily available at the constant speeds that aircraft engines work at..  

Answer 6

the legend of the drunken donkey (I'm loving the name!) is absolutely right, but there is one other little thing.

Turbochargers on aircraft do not do the same thing they do on a car. Rather than trying to create extra boost for more power, aircraft do not try to build excessive boost. In fact, it is not called turbocharging, its called turbonormalizing. Basically what that means is the turbo will create sea level pressure for the engine up until a critical altitude where it won't be able to maintain sea lever pressure. So basically peak horsepower can be maintained from sea level to the critical altitude. Most aircraft consider any manifold pressure (boost) higher than what could be achieved at sea level without a turbo to be "over boosting."

A supercharger can't maintain sea level pressure, there is no efficient way of controlling boost levels. But there is still a place for superchargers, and that is very high performance engines, like those used in ww2. Superchargers were common, they could be found on many fighters including Spitfires, Mustangs, ME-109, A6M Zero, Hellcat, and many others. Bombers of the era favored turbocharging.

Currently, there are some modern supercharged aircraft, I am drawing a blank as to what they are but I do know they do exist. They are not common but they do exist.

The FAA will not deny certification as a result of using a supercharger. Even with a belt failure a supercharger becomes restrictive, but does not stop an engine from running. The air flow from the engine will overcome the drag of the rotors in the supercharger and pull air through the rotors.  A failed supercharger will be much less restrictive than a failed turbocharger, which will seize when it fails, effectively putting a cork in the intake of the engine.

Answer 7

i would guess weight and you don't sacrifice power for a turbo as you do with a super