Turbo charging vs. Supercharging

[LasVegas]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by h2sin:

You wont answer because you know the obvious answer and so does everyone with a common sense.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>Okay. Obviously you're an aviation authority now.

1. Flying Senator Birch Bayh on campaign in a AeroStar 601B (turbocharged). Lost tubocharger on right engine in flight. Two pilots on board. Completed flight.
2. Ferry a pressurized turbocharged twin from Baton Rouge to Indiana. Known issue before takeoff. Turbocharger failure on one engine. Completed flight.
3. Maybe you should contact the FAA with your estute knowledge.
4. Turbine engines (a turbocharger in part) turn at over 100,000 rpm. Gee, the blades are only about 10 feet from passengers. Better ground them all. One might fail.
5. The air cycle machine (small turbine spun by bleed air off the turbine engine) on a Turbine Commander used to cool the cabin turns at 86,000 rpm and is about 2 feet from the rear passengers heads separated only by very thin skin. Shouldn't we worry about those blades coming apart and decapatating someone??
7. If the internal parts of a supercharger sitting directly on top of the engine fails you're not concerned about engine indestion?

Listen sonny, you're in over your head. I'm not an authority on turbocharger design and haven't professed to be one. I do have thousand of hours operating turbocharged equipment and understand the components and operation. I've worked on countless turbocharged engines, aircraft mostly but some vehicles. I drive a turbcharged H2. You on the other hand keep making statements based on what ?????????? And now you're going to come with statements about aviation or are you an expert there too? Let's stop this exchange before it get's worse.