1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

to hell with turbo... Jet power is here :)

Discussion in 'Members' Lounge' started by pissedoffsol, Jul 12, 2003.

  1. pissedoffsol

    pissedoffsol RETIRED

    Messages:
    49,693
    Likes Received:
    53
    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2002
    Location:
    Retirement Home
  2. phunky.buddha

    phunky.buddha Admin with a big stick Admin VIP

    Messages:
    28,465
    Likes Received:
    228
    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2002
    Location:
    Dallas / Fort Worth, TX
    :lol:
     
  3. Loco Honkey

    Loco Honkey Banned

    Messages:
    3,646
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2003
    Wow, welcome to like, 25 years ago!

    Now, to further that idea one step... have the exhaust gas from the first turbine entering the turbine inlet of a second turbo, but have the shaft of the second turbo driving something like a tire, for instance. You'd have to seriously gear it down, use truck turbos, and it'd be highly inefficient, but you could do it.

    Essentially, you're building a turboprop engine, but instead of a prop, you're turning a wheel.
     
  4. Capt. Orygun

    Capt. Orygun Win the Day

    Messages:
    7,180
    Likes Received:
    121
    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2002
    Location:
    Oregon
    A turbo prop/wheel driven car lol! I work on C130s (turbo prop), if 4 of those engines can move that pile of steel imagine what one could do for your car
     
  5. JDMilan

    JDMilan Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,730
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    May 11, 2003
    Location:
    Boca Raton, FL
  6. Loco Honkey

    Loco Honkey Banned

    Messages:
    3,646
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2003

    Ah, the Herky Bird. Well, y'see... those are much larger than what I'm figuring. I'd imagine that two truck turbos set up ala turboprop fashion would generate about 25 shaft HP and consume a shitload of propane... They'd also be heavy because you'd need an oiling system, electrical system to ignite the fuel, and compressed air on board to start the turbine if having an APU isn't practical.

    I had seriously considered building two engines like this and mounting them on the wings of a MiniMax ultralight, but for one, the FAA wouldn't be havin' any of that, and two, it just wouldn't be practical. Cool, yes. Practical, no.
     
  7. IDMaxGuy

    IDMaxGuy Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,479
    Likes Received:
    2
    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Location:
    MO
    C130 Gunship ownzz j000000000000000000000000000, stupid Iraqis
     
  8. Loco Honkey

    Loco Honkey Banned

    Messages:
    3,646
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2003
    Wow, so all Iraqis are stupid? Even the doctor that saved Jessica Lynch? Remember him? The guy that saw her being tortured in the hospital, then approached the US Military, who could very well have shot him, told them about her, then went back to check the place out, then went back again to the US Military, all the while dodging fire and crossing the battle field... Think he's stupid?

    Nay, he's not stupid. Saddam is stupid.

    Please, try not to be too ignorant. I don't want it rubbing off on me.
     
  9. 98integrals

    98integrals Senior Member

    Messages:
    638
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2002
    Location:
    Kzoo

    why do that?

    just strap the engine to the frame of the car. jet engines dont make torque they make lbs of thrust, ie they dont do very well at spinning things, just pushing them.

    and on a related note-
    2 weekends ago they had Jet cars up at the local strip, fastest pass of the night was a 5.21x @ 304 mph :worthy:
     
  10. Loco Honkey

    Loco Honkey Banned

    Messages:
    3,646
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2003


    Why not? A truck turbocharger is only going to make a few lbs. of thrust, unless you spend many hours researching and designing a nozzle. And even then, off the line acceleration is going to suffer because the engine is static- meaning, it's not moving. Part of the reason why turbine engines create tremendous power is because as they move, they're ramming air into their inlet. At low airspeeds (groundspeed, in this case), a turbine makes dick for thrust. That's why an F-16, even in afterburner, can get owned by a Corvette to about 120 MPH.

    By mechanically linking the engine to the wheels, you have much more torque at lower speeds. To put it in automotive terms, it's the difference between an automatic (turbine) and a standard (turboprop). You still have to deal with turbine spool up, but that's no different than flying a turbine powered aircraft- you anticipate the need for power before you actually need it (on a side note, this is why 95% of the drivers out there would make shitty airline pilots).



    Jet as in rocket or turbine? I'm willing to bet that they were rocket powered. But either way, we're probably talking about 40,000+ lbs. of thrust in a sub 6,000 lb. vehicle. Drop the thrust down to equal the power to weight ratio of a Type R, and I'm willing to bet that a Yugo on a bad day would smoke it.
     
  11. 98integrals

    98integrals Senior Member

    Messages:
    638
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2002
    Location:
    Kzoo
    not rocket powerd.

    these were turbofans (i think) bolted to a frame, with a seat and some alumium on the outside to make it look like a car.

    these were only making 10-20,000 lbs of thrust (my guess, no real proof) and couldnt have weighed more than 1500-2000 lbs.


    and you are exactly right as far as spool up goes. look at their Et: low 5, now look at the trap speed: 304...normally a 300+ trap means a 4.xxx but because these jet cars have "no" low end power and do not have gears like a normal car they cant accelerate as well off the line as say a top fuel dragster.
     
  12. CXhatchboy520

    CXhatchboy520 Junior Member

    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2003
    Yeah, id bet it was a P&W JT8D-200 (McDonnell Douglas MD-80/DC-9) Turbofan engine (15-25,000 LBS of thrust). Anything bigger, say a CFM-56(Boeing 737-300, 400, 500, New Generation, 25-30,000 LBS of thrust) wouldn't be so small :p . It also could have been a business aircraft engine, say a GE CF34 (Canadair CRJ, 7000-8000 Lbs of thrust). But i think the most likely engine was that of a fighter jet. Say one off an early jet, like an F-4(est. between 7,000 and 10,000 Lbs of dry thrust for each engine, and about 10-14,000 Lbs of wet thrust *afterburner*) .
     
  13. jeffie7

    jeffie7 Wrong Whole! VIP

    Messages:
    12,928
    Likes Received:
    730
    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2002
    Location:
    Maryland
    My brother use to have a Dodge Stealth R/T "aka 3000GT VR4" he said taking off in an F16 is just like doing 0-60 in his car both put off about the same force only catch is the jet keeps going and going and going 800 mph later... going and going lol
     
  14. convertedstangbanger

    convertedstangbanger Senior Member

    Messages:
    141
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2003
    Location:
    ATX!
Verification:
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page