User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 3:13:05 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You seem knowledgable. If most of the efficiency is lost due to heat, then why haven't people figured out a way to extract that heat and turn it into power? Electrical or otherwise. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The turbine engine is not the most thermodynamically efficient design out there, and right now a traditional piston reciprocating design is about as good as it gets. Some get close to 50% thermally efficient or higher. Turbines excel in situations where power to weight ratio is more important than fuel economy. Without fully geeking out, it has to do with cycle efficiency...and in very simplest terms, the higher you can compress the intake charge, the more energy you can get out of it once you add the fuel. You seem knowledgable. If most of the efficiency is lost due to heat, then why haven't people figured out a way to extract that heat and turn it into power? Electrical or otherwise. Personally, I think the next major revolution with the biggest impact will be in thermoelectrics. We nail that... 
As to how..? No clue 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 3:18:25 PM EDT
[#2]
I would think that a small turbine would work well in electric cars for charging batteries on long drives. Constant speed would be benificial but cost and emissions will be an issue.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 3:19:29 PM EDT
[#3]
why not a small turbine powered generator to make electricity for electric wheel motors and batteries on a car?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 3:35:36 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Military tanks use turbines, but they use the turbine to drive a generator, which then drives electric motors. Fuel economy and maintenance expense is not an issue for military tanks, since it is funded by taxpayers. The only true statement here is that military tanks use turbines. They do not drive a generator or use electric motors. Maintenance is a huge issue. The design life for an AGT1500 was 2,000 hours but they now see overhauls at 750-1,000 hours, at tremendous expense, and they get 0.5 MPG, which necessitates a forces with tens of thousands of Soldiers driving fuel trucks all over the battlespace. Switching to the LV100-5 would have saved about 33% of that fuel, and upped the overhaul timeline to 3,000 hours but the military didn't go for it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 3:38:23 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm actually working on this for long range tractor trailers. Going with a hybrid setup. Really interesting work What is the projected cost of the turbine? I'm familiar with the Aviation side of things, and it's hard to picture cheap, reliable jet engines. Do the efficiencies of a turbine scale down? If so, is there a limit, or can they theoretically be made very small and still efficient? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 3:47:03 PM EDT
[#6]
The fuel economy and throttle response issues could be mitigated by using the turbine to charge a battery instead of sending power directly to the wheels. I have no idea if you could save enough to make it worthwhile when you factor in maintenance costs.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 3:48:06 PM EDT
[#7]
M1A1
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 3:54:23 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm still wondering why they haven't built a small ICE or turbine driven generator to power Hub motors. It could be 2/4 wheel driven as needed. Very fast accel, breaking, super mileage numbers, and low GVW. No huge battery pack and its weight, replace them with capacitors. Instead they build these fucking Hybrids with two propulsion systems that "share" the propulsuin duties. Typical .gov and car company committee built pieces of crap. Simple and efficient negates the need for billions in bureaucratic waste. Oh snap seems as though I have answered my own question. 
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Always thought that turbine engines are the most efficient platform with the least parts and produce the most power. The internal combustion engine is a product of the industrial age and fairly antiquated as a means to produce a vehicles momentum. It works, but only so well. Much of the energy produced is wasted. Why haven't we produced a turbine style engine to power our automobiles? I would have thought that it would be the next logical step. People smarter than me chime in please I'm still wondering why they haven't built a small ICE or turbine driven generator to power Hub motors. It could be 2/4 wheel driven as needed. Very fast accel, breaking, super mileage numbers, and low GVW. No huge battery pack and its weight, replace them with capacitors. Instead they build these fucking Hybrids with two propulsion systems that "share" the propulsuin duties. Typical .gov and car company committee built pieces of crap. Simple and efficient negates the need for billions in bureaucratic waste. Oh snap seems as though I have answered my own question.
Hub motors...Yo!.....I like them at least in theory.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 3:57:51 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Look on youtube for the turbine powered chrysler prototypes made in the early 60's. They leased a few hundred to the public, and that is about as far as the program went. Sorta like the GM EV1 from the early 90's. One of my good friends dad had one of those leased turbine cars, Northern Ky / Cincinnati area. Said it was a blast and that the turbine was so smooth you could stand up a nickel on the engine while it was running. He has some neat pictures of it as well. The only one I have seen was at the Mopar Nationals sevral years ago. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 3:59:25 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What is the projected cost of the turbine? I'm familiar with the Aviation side of things, and it's hard to picture cheap, reliable jet engines. Do the efficiencies of a turbine scale down? If so, is there a limit, or can they theoretically be made very small and still efficient? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm actually working on this for long range tractor trailers. Going with a hybrid setup. Really interesting work What is the projected cost of the turbine? I'm familiar with the Aviation side of things, and it's hard to picture cheap, reliable jet engines. Do the efficiencies of a turbine scale down? If so, is there a limit, or can they theoretically be made very small and still efficient? Well, on the other end of the spectrum JetCat RC turbines are about $5000, produce 9Kw of power (12HP) and weight 5lbs. Fuel consumption is 11.8 oz of JetA/minute with 25 hour maintenance intervals. Jetcat RC Turbine Engines |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 4:19:22 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, on the other end of the spectrum JetCat RC turbines are about $5000, produce 9Kw of power (12HP) and weight 5lbs. Fuel consumption is 11.8 oz of JetA/minute with 25 hour maintenance intervals. Jetcat RC Turbine Engines Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm actually working on this for long range tractor trailers. Going with a hybrid setup. Really interesting work What is the projected cost of the turbine? I'm familiar with the Aviation side of things, and it's hard to picture cheap, reliable jet engines. Do the efficiencies of a turbine scale down? If so, is there a limit, or can they theoretically be made very small and still efficient? Well, on the other end of the spectrum JetCat RC turbines are about $5000, produce 9Kw of power (12HP) and weight 5lbs. Fuel consumption is 11.8 oz of JetA/minute with 25 hour maintenance intervals. Jetcat RC Turbine Engines Sounds like a very high fuel burn and mx schedule. How much is the 25 hr. Insp.? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 4:25:58 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I wonder if a turbine hybrid would be effective. It'll run on anything that burns, can run at a constant and efficient RPM vs. variable like the turbine car. When the battery is full, turn the turbine off. The rail industry tried turbine engines back in the 50s. They were a lot less fuel efficient than diesel locomotives but since they ran on cheap petroleum by-products, they were still cost effective. They stopped being cost effective when the plastics industry showed up made those petroleum by-products a lot more valuable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 4:30:58 PM EDT
[#13]
No, a turbine engine will never see everyday driving in any type car that you or i drive. Salt flats ya sure it works.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 4:31:47 PM EDT
[#14]
I got to interview Bob Lutz a couple years ago at the North American Auto Show in Detroit and I asked him that as the last question of the interview for shits and giggles.
Me: You are also a jet pilot. Any chance of the auto industry bringing turbines back like the Chrysler Concepts of the 1960’s? <o:p></o:p> Bob Lutz: [laughing] No! They’re way too expensive and gas turbines are efficient at high altitudes but at sea level they’re guzzlers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 4:33:14 PM EDT
[#15]
Efficiency of turbine engines only gets good for multiple stages.
That takes the design into a cost area that is insane for a car. Then there is the transmission of all that power. Of course, you can go turbo-electric, but that only makes economic sense for things like railroad locomotives. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 4:38:19 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Efficiency of turbine engines only gets good for multiple stages. That takes the design into a cost area that is insane for a car. Then there is the transmission of all that power. Of course, you can go turbo-electric, but that only makes economic sense for things like railroad locomotives. Even at that point turbines are still so fuel inefficient relative to diesels that it doesn't make sense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 4:48:46 PM EDT
[#17]
Jay Leno's Y2K Turbine bike.
Jay has said he's had to pay for a couple of plastic bumpers when people have gotten to close to the exhaust blast.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 4:49:32 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Even at that point turbines are still so fuel inefficient relative to diesels that it doesn't make sense. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Efficiency of turbine engines only gets good for multiple stages. That takes the design into a cost area that is insane for a car. Then there is the transmission of all that power. Of course, you can go turbo-electric, but that only makes economic sense for things like railroad locomotives. Even at that point turbines are still so fuel inefficient relative to diesels that it doesn't make sense. Turbines actually are economically competitive with diesels when running under a constant load, which is why they are popular for electric power generation. The problem with previous attempts at turbine powered cars and railroad locomotives was that the engine spent too much time running well below full power. This can be solved by using the turbine to charge a battery, so it is always running either at full load or not at all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 4:52:54 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: At the time, I heard there will little problems like whether you wanted the exhaust to melt the road or the grill of the car behind you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 4:57:27 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What is the projected cost of the turbine? I'm familiar with the Aviation side of things, and it's hard to picture cheap, reliable jet engines. Do the efficiencies of a turbine scale down? If so, is there a limit, or can they theoretically be made very small and still efficient? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I'm actually working on this for long range tractor trailers. Going with a hybrid setup. Really interesting work What is the projected cost of the turbine? I'm familiar with the Aviation side of things, and it's hard to picture cheap, reliable jet engines. Do the efficiencies of a turbine scale down? If so, is there a limit, or can they theoretically be made very small and still efficient? The efficiencies scale down to a point then they drop off very badly. they start climbing back up again in the sub-horsepower range microturbines. My proof of integration prototype is actually using one of the jetcatUSA SPT-10 engines. the small prototype is a kart sized vehicle. Its going to be designed to prove that turbines, electric motors, generators and batteries all play nice. Plus it gives investors a vehicle they can actually go drive. I literally just finished up the motor mount yesterday in the machineshop for the electric motor. Going to be bolting it, the motor controller and ancillary equipment up next week. following that will be the 156 lbs of batteries and then grafting the turbine onto the chassis. a lot of fun, but HUGE f*ing challenges at the same time. I've got 2 other companies currently competing with me--Wright Speed and Nikola. They are both using a similar architecture which I wont be using. Their models show about a 2x increase in milage. My models for my architecture show 3x increase in fuel milage. They are both very well funded while my company is definitely an underdog, but we'll see what the next 6 moths bring. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 4:59:40 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm surprised there isn't a solid state solution which can use temperature differential to generate electricity. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The turbine engine is not the most thermodynamically efficient design out there, and right now a traditional piston reciprocating design is about as good as it gets. Some get close to 50% thermally efficient or higher. Turbines excel in situations where power to weight ratio is more important than fuel economy. Without fully geeking out, it has to do with cycle efficiency...and in very simplest terms, the higher you can compress the intake charge, the more energy you can get out of it once you add the fuel. You seem knowledgable. If most of the efficiency is lost due to heat, then why haven't people figured out a way to extract that heat and turn it into power? Electrical or otherwise. Great question, and there is a lot of work in that space! The biggest reason you don't see a lot of other devices is that the added cost usually doesn't justify the additional gains. Probably the most common way to recover waste heat is a turbocharger. While many folks see this as just a way to boost power (by adding in more air, and thus more fuel can be burned) it also typically increases thermal efficiency since the engine doesn't have to do extra work to intake that extra air. There are devices like turbo compounding devices that have a turbine that is geared to the crank shaft. There are all sorts of other turbo generator type devices that use exhaust to do useful work. The challenge is that a lot of heat goes into the engine coolant, and recovering that is a bit harder. In some stationary genset applications that waste heat can be used to heat hot water and other things to at least use that heat rather than have to pay for another heat source to make hot water. I'm surprised there isn't a solid state solution which can use temperature differential to generate electricity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_generator As always, the question is probably efficiency. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 5:03:28 PM EDT
[#22]
I remember the STP "Whooshmobile" in the '67 Indy. Way cool.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 5:10:14 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Turbines actually are economically competitive with diesels when running under a constant load, which is why they are popular for electric power generation. The problem with previous attempts at turbine powered cars and railroad locomotives was that the engine spent too much time running well below full power. This can be solved by using the turbine to charge a battery, so it is always running either at full load or not at all. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Efficiency of turbine engines only gets good for multiple stages. That takes the design into a cost area that is insane for a car. Then there is the transmission of all that power. Of course, you can go turbo-electric, but that only makes economic sense for things like railroad locomotives. Even at that point turbines are still so fuel inefficient relative to diesels that it doesn't make sense. Turbines actually are economically competitive with diesels when running under a constant load, which is why they are popular for electric power generation. The problem with previous attempts at turbine powered cars and railroad locomotives was that the engine spent too much time running well below full power. This can be solved by using the turbine to charge a battery, so it is always running either at full load or not at all. You are correct, especially when you start talking up over say 4-5,000 hp. The turbine scales really well and so bigger turbines have lower losses, and when fine tuned can definitely start to rival diesels for efficiency. I should have clarified my statement to include the lower power ranges. And you nailed it...part load efficiency is not as good either. Not saying turbines are bad, just not currently as good as reciprocating engines in a number of applications. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 5:22:03 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In addition to the above comments, the MPG of a turbine would be horrible for city driving. The turbine needs to run at a high RPM just to keep the combustion process going. Military tanks use turbines, but they use the turbine to drive a generator, which then drives electric motors. Fuel economy and maintenance expense is not an issue for military tanks, since it is funded by taxpayers. No shit. I remember reading that the M-1 Abrams (magnificent beast that it is) gets something like 1/4 mpg. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 5:22:49 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The smallest turbine I have ever run was about the size of a 4 cylinder engine. It burned 29.4 gallons an hour just turning a small generator. That is $88/hr considering a $3/gal fuel price. Driving 60mph it would cost a small turbine $88 in fuel to go 60 miles. A car that gets 20mpg will cost $9 in fuel to go that same distance at the same speed at the same fuel price. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Because starting a turbine is a no shit process that takes time and theyre much more suited to constant speed vs up/down like an ICE. Plus if you think repairing a modern diesel is expensive, your head may explode when you consider turbine maintenance. ** I only have experience with bigger turbines, that stuff may not hold in the smaller ones. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile I wanted to emphasize this topic primarily. A whole lot has changed within the development of the turbine engine. I want to know how the small variants stack up against the internal combustion engine these days The smallest turbine I have ever run was about the size of a 4 cylinder engine. It burned 29.4 gallons an hour just turning a small generator. That is $88/hr considering a $3/gal fuel price. Driving 60mph it would cost a small turbine $88 in fuel to go 60 miles. A car that gets 20mpg will cost $9 in fuel to go that same distance at the same speed at the same fuel price. But would it do a wheelie? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 5:36:03 PM EDT
[#26]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 5:45:55 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Look up the turbine Corvette on Youtube. A turbine powered car fared very well at Indy until mechanical issues took it out of the race. Between heat, fuel economy, and a general unwillingness of owners to put forth the effort that jet engines require, turbine powered cars are never going to become a thing. I was at that Indy race, where a $4 bearing failed with the turbine car (driven by Parnelli Jones) with a commanding lead (maybe more than a lap?) with 4 laps to go. The turbine was so dominant vs. the other conventional cars that they dialed down their boost so as to make things competitive. The reconfigured turbines were still dominant, but never could pull off a win. Reliability issues were the problem, then, I think. High maintenance is ok for a race car, but for a daily driver, no way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 5:52:36 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are correct, especially when you start talking up over say 4-5,000 hp. The turbine scales really well and so bigger turbines have lower losses, and when fine tuned can definitely start to rival diesels for efficiency. I should have clarified my statement to include the lower power ranges. And you nailed it...part load efficiency is not as good either. Not saying turbines are bad, just not currently as good as reciprocating engines in a number of applications. Good points. I wonder how big a battery one would need in relation to the turbine to keep from blowing any efficiency gains on frequent turbine starts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 5:53:51 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Jay Leno's Y2K Turbine bike. Jay has said he's had to pay for a couple of plastic bumpers when people have gotten to close to the exhaust blast.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BjtvJe_PjY
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 5:54:46 PM EDT
[#30]
I'd go with a flux capacitor powered car instead.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 5:56:00 PM EDT
[#31]
Pulse jet or GTFO
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 5:56:08 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Watch this. https://youtu.be/b2A5ijU3Ivs
Exhaust temps were not a problem. Emissions, fuel economy and expensive raw materials were the death nell for turbine cars.  I watched this after this thread started, just out of curiosity. It was amazing how smooth it was when he put the glass of water on the engine. Listening to Leno talk about it as he drove was interesting. I'd love to take a walk through his garage. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 6:19:37 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The only true statement here is that military tanks use turbines. They do not drive a generator or use electric motors. Maintenance is a huge issue. The design life for an AGT1500 was 2,000 hours but they now see overhauls at 750-1,000 hours, at tremendous expense, and they get 0.5 MPG, which necessitates a forces with tens of thousands of Soldiers driving fuel trucks all over the battlespace. Switching to the LV100-5 would have saved about 33% of that fuel, and upped the overhaul timeline to 3,000 hours but the military didn't go for it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Military tanks use turbines, but they use the turbine to drive a generator, which then drives electric motors. Fuel economy and maintenance expense is not an issue for military tanks, since it is funded by taxpayers. The only true statement here is that military tanks use turbines. They do not drive a generator or use electric motors. Maintenance is a huge issue. The design life for an AGT1500 was 2,000 hours but they now see overhauls at 750-1,000 hours, at tremendous expense, and they get 0.5 MPG, which necessitates a forces with tens of thousands of Soldiers driving fuel trucks all over the battlespace. Switching to the LV100-5 would have saved about 33% of that fuel, and upped the overhaul timeline to 3,000 hours but the military didn't go for it. Thanks for the correction. I was thinking of heavy mining trucks that use Diesel engines to drive electric motors. Not sure why I was thinking it was the Abrams that did similar. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 10:09:26 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
For my full scale prototype, I've been able to find some mid time allison and rolls engines for around 30k. I'm hoping a large order with a major manufacturer will bring the cost down. 15k units, optimized for longevity and cycle time rather than weight--also no damn FAA certification effort, ground use only. As mentioned above, using a recuperator will be absolutely essential. tests have been showing a 98% increase in thermal efficiency with a properly sized recuperator. Since its on a truck, and I'm eliminating some really heavy hardware as it is, I'm not too concerned about that. The efficiencies scale down to a point then they drop off very badly. they start climbing back up again in the sub-horsepower range microturbines. My proof of integration prototype is actually using one of the jetcatUSA SPT-10 engines. the small prototype is a kart sized vehicle. Its going to be designed to prove that turbines, electric motors, generators and batteries all play nice. Plus it gives investors a vehicle they can actually go drive. I literally just finished up the motor mount yesterday in the machineshop for the electric motor. Going to be bolting it, the motor controller and ancillary equipment up next week. following that will be the 156 lbs of batteries and then grafting the turbine onto the chassis. a lot of fun, but HUGE f*ing challenges at the same time. I've got 2 other companies currently competing with me--Wright Speed and Nikola. They are both using a similar architecture which I wont be using. Their models show about a 2x increase in milage. My models for my architecture show 3x increase in fuel milage. They are both very well funded while my company is definitely an underdog, but we'll see what the next 6 moths bring. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm actually working on this for long range tractor trailers. Going with a hybrid setup. Really interesting work What is the projected cost of the turbine? I'm familiar with the Aviation side of things, and it's hard to picture cheap, reliable jet engines. Do the efficiencies of a turbine scale down? If so, is there a limit, or can they theoretically be made very small and still efficient? The efficiencies scale down to a point then they drop off very badly. they start climbing back up again in the sub-horsepower range microturbines. My proof of integration prototype is actually using one of the jetcatUSA SPT-10 engines. the small prototype is a kart sized vehicle. Its going to be designed to prove that turbines, electric motors, generators and batteries all play nice. Plus it gives investors a vehicle they can actually go drive. I literally just finished up the motor mount yesterday in the machineshop for the electric motor. Going to be bolting it, the motor controller and ancillary equipment up next week. following that will be the 156 lbs of batteries and then grafting the turbine onto the chassis. a lot of fun, but HUGE f*ing challenges at the same time. I've got 2 other companies currently competing with me--Wright Speed and Nikola. They are both using a similar architecture which I wont be using. Their models show about a 2x increase in milage. My models for my architecture show 3x increase in fuel milage. They are both very well funded while my company is definitely an underdog, but we'll see what the next 6 moths bring. Sounds like a really interesting project. I wish you all the best success. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 10:35:42 PM EDT
[#35]
GM built a prototype bus, the RTS, in the '60's with a turbine engine. The bus eventually went into production but with conventional diesel power.
http://www.curbsideclassic.com/bus-stop-classic/bus-stop-classics-general-motors-rapid-transit-series-rts-ii-coach-a-sure-bet/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/10/2016 10:44:46 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thanks for the correction. I was thinking of heavy mining trucks that use Diesel engines to drive electric motors. Not sure why I was thinking it was the Abrams that did similar. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Military tanks use turbines, but they use the turbine to drive a generator, which then drives electric motors. Fuel economy and maintenance expense is not an issue for military tanks, since it is funded by taxpayers. The only true statement here is that military tanks use turbines. They do not drive a generator or use electric motors. Maintenance is a huge issue. The design life for an AGT1500 was 2,000 hours but they now see overhauls at 750-1,000 hours, at tremendous expense, and they get 0.5 MPG, which necessitates a forces with tens of thousands of Soldiers driving fuel trucks all over the battlespace. Switching to the LV100-5 would have saved about 33% of that fuel, and upped the overhaul timeline to 3,000 hours but the military didn't go for it. Thanks for the correction. I was thinking of heavy mining trucks that use Diesel engines to drive electric motors. Not sure why I was thinking it was the Abrams that did similar. CAT 795 AC is one of the elec drive mine trucks - I believe it's a C175-16 engine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/10/2016 10:48:59 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
Always thought that turbine engines are the most efficient platform with the least parts and produce the most power. The internal combustion engine is a product of the industrial age and fairly antiquated as a means to produce a vehicles momentum. It works, but only so well. Much of the energy produced is wasted. Why haven't we produced a turbine style engine to power our automobiles? I would have thought that it would be the next logical step. People smarter than me chime in please I've never heard of anyone putting a turbo prop engine into a car. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/10/2016 11:27:27 PM EDT
[#38]
How about a radial?
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/10/2016 11:30:43 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How about a radial? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile I would like one of these installed in my car.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/10/2016 11:33:59 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryThat was awesome! Parnelli and Andy Granatelli. Shame it didnt win. TC |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/10/2016 11:47:39 PM EDT
[#41]
I just love the sound of the fuckers.
If I had a LOT of money to spare, I'd get one of those Olympus model aircraft jet engines and have a transmission made to run my fucking lawn tractor on it or something. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/10/2016 11:51:15 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would like one of these installed in my car. http://www.williammaloney.com/aviation/NewEnglandAirMuseum/AircraftEngines/images/14PrattWhitneyR2800DoubleWasp.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
How about a radial? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile I would like one of these installed in my car. http://www.williammaloney.com/aviation/NewEnglandAirMuseum/AircraftEngines/images/14PrattWhitneyR2800DoubleWasp.jpg That's the one I had in mind. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/11/2016 12:03:05 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryI'd give ten thousand dollars to go back in time and fuck the hell outta her. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/11/2016 9:59:06 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
power to weight awesome, fuel efficiency not so much This. A small turbine can make massive power, but it has something around 60% the fuel efficiency of the reciprocating engine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/11/2016 10:00:59 AM EDT
[#45]
Maybe as a hybrid electric with a small turbine generating electricity for a battery/electric-motor drive system.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/11/2016 10:03:59 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would like one of these installed in my car. http://www.williammaloney.com/aviation/NewEnglandAirMuseum/AircraftEngines/images/14PrattWhitneyR2800DoubleWasp.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
How about a radial? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile I would like one of these installed in my car. http://www.williammaloney.com/aviation/NewEnglandAirMuseum/AircraftEngines/images/14PrattWhitneyR2800DoubleWasp.jpg What's the old saying? If it's not leaking oil there's no oil in it... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/11/2016 10:21:11 AM EDT
[#47]
Half a mile per gallon and a rebuild cost (every couple of months) more than the original purchase price of the car. Sign me the fuck up!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/11/2016 10:34:54 AM EDT
[#48]
Accidents could get interesting. Turbine fans and compressors letting go is something best observed from a respectful distance.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/11/2016 11:09:13 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's the one I had in mind. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How about a radial? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile I would like one of these installed in my car. http://www.williammaloney.com/aviation/NewEnglandAirMuseum/AircraftEngines/images/14PrattWhitneyR2800DoubleWasp.jpg That's the one I had in mind. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Would this fit the bill? 
More here Or maybe 2 wheels. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/11/2016 11:16:26 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Half a mile per gallon and a rebuild cost (every couple of months) more than the original purchase price of the car. Sign me the fuck up! Not being in an aircraft I would imagine the maintenance interval would be much more forgiving. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
