Very Interesting Engine Design

[altezzaclub]

Meh- in the end it doesn't matter a shit what Aussie does- Its all about China and India with 2.5 billion people (that's 100 people for every Australian!) who will all want to drive cars, and they need to be super-clean fuel-sipping hybrids or whatever.

 

I don't see any sign of THAT happening, India still makes all those Lee Enfield motorbikes that it can't export because they don't meet ANY emission requirements.

 

We get stuck with stuff that the Americans or the UN have decided is good for us.

[camerondownunder88]

Problem with a lot of gas turbine cars is A) a lot of gas turbine engines some how come from miltary applications thus when the military asked for their engines back the chrysler turbine car progress was halted other wise id be driving one.

 

There are a few other reasons they are not put into cars in the main stream world but Id have one tomorrow if I could (on the road that is). The HP and Torque from them would make for such a nice drive.

 

 

 

Cheers

Cameron

[irokin]

Here you are Ben. Here's one i prepared earlier.

 

I'm trying to fit it in a kesev, but I don't want to cut the firewall, and do you think I can still use the K50?

 

pr0n!

 

I was thinking something more along the lines of this though: http://www.zenithair.com/misc/turbine-power.html

 

Hooked up to a trimatic, exhaust venting out the bonnet, all that good stuff.

 

 

Kinda like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZSBpFMWk-M

[clubby2084]

Thoroughly pistol whipped by the gas turbine, even more so in the reliability stakes. They'll run on pretty much anything that can burn and be introduced to the combustor continuously. They've been run on diesel, alcohol, vegetable oil, hydrogen and even coal! I'm surprised that no ones really had a proper go (that I'm aware of) at developing a modern production car powered by one. The Chrysler turbine car was built in the 60's, material technologies have come a long way since then.

http://www.google.com.au/imgres?q=jaguar+jet+powered+car&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&biw=1280&bih=827&tbm=isch&tbnid=P6A5fZCfPfKqsM:&imgrefurl=http://wallpapers-diq.com/wp/17__Jaguar_C-X75_Jet-Powered_Supercar_2010.html&docid=WVOic2os3c1NwM&w=1920&h=1200&ei=qoFOTp_sKI7jmAW209TnBg&zoom=1

 

http://www.google.com.au/imgres?q=jaguar+jet+powered+car&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&biw=1280&bih=827&tbm=isch&tbnid=JRe1pA2X7C5wCM:&imgrefurl=http://editorial.autos.msn.com/article.aspx%253Fcp-documentid%253D1164254&docid=k39z0tR_tvqDKM&w=425&h=255&ei=P7lOTsm8C-jXmAWj4ODhBg&zoom=1

 

Have a look at what Jaguar are doing with their C-X75. It was initially a concept but Jag reckon their going to build it. 2 x tiny turbine engines (that run on duck farts) powering electric motors.

The Chrysler turbine car was interesting, so were the "brakes" apparently, drums trying to haul up a HEAVY Chrysler with a jet engine (no engine braking), it took a while for the jet engine to wind down enough for the brakes to have any effect. Yikes!.

Edited August 19, 2011 by clubby2084

[Toy-Yoda[RL]]

Kinda like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZSBpFMWk-M

I need that start up noise

 

When do they start production? :laff:

[irokin]

http://www.google.com.au/imgres?q=jaguar+jet+powered+car&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&biw=1280&bih=827&tbm=isch&tbnid=P6A5fZCfPfKqsM:&imgrefurl=http://wallpapers-diq.com/wp/17__Jaguar_C-X75_Jet-Powered_Supercar_2010.html&docid=WVOic2os3c1NwM&w=1920&h=1200&ei=qoFOTp_sKI7jmAW209TnBg&zoom=1

 

http://www.google.com.au/imgres?q=jaguar+jet+powered+car&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&biw=1280&bih=827&tbm=isch&tbnid=JRe1pA2X7C5wCM:&imgrefurl=http://editorial.autos.msn.com/article.aspx%253Fcp-documentid%253D1164254&docid=k39z0tR_tvqDKM&w=425&h=255&ei=P7lOTsm8C-jXmAWj4ODhBg&zoom=1

 

Have a look at what Jaguar are doing with their C-X75. It was initially a concept but Jag reckon their going to build it. 2 x tiny turbine engines (that run on duck farts) powering electric motors.

The Chrysler turbine car was interesting, so were the "brakes" apparently, drums trying to haul up a HEAVY Chrysler with a jet engine (no engine braking), it took a while for the jet engine to wind down enough for the brakes to have any effect. Yikes!.

 

Hrm interesting, I doubt it will ever make it to production with the turbines though.

 

I thought the Chrysler had a variable vanes on the free power turbine so snapping the throttle shut would result in no torque. I think it could even reverse the vanes to produce engine breaking? Its been a while since I've read into those cars though.

[altezzaclub]

You'll be right-

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F-I08xLWqM&feature=related

 

they always take so long to start, then so long to spool up and get going, so I don't think they will replace piston motors very soon.

[altezzaclub]

just go for it- Looks easy enough...

 

http://www.ronpatrickstuff.com/

[Evan G]

redwaft serviced it lasted :P :lolcry:

[irokin]

they always take so long to start, then so long to spool up and get going, so I don't think they will replace piston motors very soon.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCXwgPZXScM

 

M1A1, 1500shp 2500ish ft.lb ... by my reconing thats a 26 second startup sequence. 0:32-0:58. And to be honest the response from that looks no worse than some of the ~300kw mine trucks I've been in. As far as I'm aware the Abrams engine uses a free power turbine setup.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bE56Nf6lsSQ

MD500 ~200-300kW much longer start because power is taken directly off the shaft (IIRC) so the engine is under load from start. Could remedy this in a car though so there's no load while starting up. 52 seconds, 2:29-3:21

 

You need to remember in aviation engines are designed largely around cruise performance rather than responsiveness. They're more responsive at higher thrust levels, thus flaps are there to create lots of drag (and some extra lift) to allow higher thrust levels while landing where there's more response needed. Ever noticed how the engines sound like they're working hard just before landing? Unless you're riding in a C-17 doing a tactical approach that isn't reverse thrust.

 

Also, the idea isn't to use the thrust of the engine to propel the car. Massively inefficient at low altitudes. You use the thrust to turn a free power turbine (or take power directly off the turbines shaft) and use that to turn the wheels. You could employ various methods of transmitting the power to the wheels in order to compliment the behavior of the turbine. Personally I think an electric system could work fairly well.

 

Just because the engines behave in certain ways necessitated by their use in aircraft doesn't mean they have to carry those design parameters into vehicles as well.

[pyrohamish]

problem with turbines is the massive amount of noise and the constant whine

secondly the large amount of reduction needed in the gearbox up to 50 000 RPM from the turbine compared to up to say 8000 for a standard engine

[ke70dave]

awesome videos irokin.

 

i would drive a jet powered car PURELY for the first 4 seconds of the sound of the thing when you hit the start button.

 

imagine sitting in coles carpark.....put groceries in car....flick the rocker switch over (because i would have a rocker switch, many of them, red ones).....*intsert wicked jet engine noise*

 

cruise on out of car park with my jet engine whiring.

[irokin]

problem with turbines is the massive amount of noise and the constant whine

secondly the large amount of reduction needed in the gearbox up to 50 000 RPM from the turbine compared to up to say 8000 for a standard engine

 

I think you could go a fair ways to remedying the noise these days. Again, they're noisy on aircraft due to space and aerodynamic constraints dictated by that application. On a car you've got space for mufflers and large airboxes etc. The Chrysler turbine car sounds fairly reasonable using 1960s technology. I would hope we can do better almost 50 years on.

 

Output speed and reduction gearboxes aren't an issue IMO. Remember the blades of a prop or rotor don't spin anywhere near those speeds so the aviation industry is capable of packing in light weight, compact and ultra reliable reduction gearboxes. The PW150A off the Dash 8 Q400 (3600kW!) has an output speed of ~1000rpm through a two stage free power turbine and reduction gearbox arrangement. Many other turbines output in the range of 1000-6000rpm. I wouldn't consider driving the wheels directly, but coupling it through an electric drive system. Hopefully that would allow you to reduce shock loading the turbine and add regenerative braking etc.

 

The biggest problem I see is cost. Because these engines have to be so reliable the cost of buying and rebuilding them is obscene. What it'd need to be successful in the automotive industry is for someone to do to the gas turbine what they did to the Rolls-Royce Merlin when they turned it into the Rolls-Royce Meteor. Essentially the same engine but the Meteor took the Merlin design and adapted components for use in tanks, where weight and massive performance didn't matter. Alloy parts were replaced with steel and generally, expensive parts that were unnecessary for a ground application were removed or replaced.