Idly thinking of turbine powered cars - are they possible/plausible?

[Ext User(Steve)]

I remember in the 1960's, Chrysler showed 3 gas turnbine powered
prototype vehicles - they even made it into a forgettable movie. But I
was clicking around the net and stumbled onto this site:

http://www.project1221.com/Gas_Turbine.html

and it set me to wondering: Why not? Thinking back on the turbine
brouhaha of the 60's where they appeared in, and were quickly banned
from, Indy and F1, I wonder how much was technical and engineering
reality, and how much was pressure from other interests. Now, from an
admittedly hazy memory, arguements given at the time about scrapping
turbines from cars were such things as acceleration, heat/fuel, cost,
and start up delay. There may be more, but thats all I remember. Seems
time has moved on and most, if not all of these, can be addressed by 40
years worth of technical advances.

Acceleration: Turbines - again, hazy memory and too lazy to Google -
develop maximum torque at stall speed, so therefore theoretically do
not require a gearbox. But because of the time it takes a turbine to
spool up, Chrysler used a Torqueflite behind the prototypes to give
them some acceleration. It seems to me that today the better arangement
would be a turbine driving an alternator, in-wheel electric motors with
supercapacitors and lithium batteries to provide the instant punch, the
whole schmear controlled by the ubiquitous body/engine computer.

Heat/fuel: The Chrslers had massive exhaust systems on them to cool the
huge volume of air exhausted by the turbine. Great rectangular section
things that looked more like a/c ducting in a house. I can think of
many ricers who would cum just at the sight of them. :) Is this still
an issue? The article on the link says that the huge amounts of air
actually cool the turbine. Anybody here got anything they can add to
that to gainsay, or support it? As for fuel - kero! Nowhere near the
volatility of petrol and much safer to handle. Plus a turbine will burn
just about anything liquid and flammable - can run it on Chivas Regal
if you want ... (no! no! no! - not my Chivas)

Cost: Supposedly because of the high quality manufacturing required due
to the high rpm these things run at, the production costs can be very
high. But given todays computer controlled laser measured production
processes, it seems to me that really it would only be the extra costs
of the exotic materials used. What are jet engines made out of, anyway?

Start up delay: See the bit above about alternative power while the
turbine spools up.

Down side: Boring sound, probably noisy as all feck. Still, could be an
interesting arguement between supporters: "The Pratt Whitney is shit,
man!" "You should hear my Turbomanski's sing" "Rolls Royce make the
only decent blade assembly" etc etc. Still be the same Holden/Ford
arguement you still here today. :) (To keep things in tune with this
groups normal mantra, the Mitsu 380 can have a japanese turbine, Holden
and Falcon the US one produced by Pratt and Whitney.)

Or - are we still going to have reciprocating i/c engines until the
continent is swamped by global warming, and unlikely anything else will
take over? Now personally, I think racing should exist to improve the
product, not provide mindless entertainment as our current V8
Stuporcars do, as Nascar does and as F1 is more and more becoming. In
my ideal world, the Lotus turbine would still be being developed, have
computer controlled variable wing geometry, full slick - no, not fully
sick - tyres, active suspension etc etc. And, apart from the rubber,
these would be incorporated into the Lotus you buy from the factory -
and it would not be owned by Proton.

OK, fingers need rest. This was supposed to be a simple question. :)

Steve

[Ext User(Kev)]

Steve wrote:

> I remember in the 1960's, Chrysler showed 3 gas turnbine powered
> prototype vehicles - they even made it into a forgettable movie. But I
> was clicking around the net and stumbled onto this site:
>
> http://www.project1221.com/Gas_Turbine.html

> OK, fingers need rest. This was supposed to be a simple question. :)
>
> Steve
>


Saw last week a write up about teh US TV host Jay Leno and the Gas
Turbine powered car he was part financier in
a light body car with a 700+hp engine
running on vegitable oil

Kev

[Ext User(atec77)]

Steve wrote:
> I remember in the 1960's, Chrysler showed 3 gas turnbine powered
> prototype vehicles - they even made it into a forgettable movie. But I
> was clicking around the net and stumbled onto this site:
>
Simple answer is turbines work well at reasonably constant rpm's
I am told a viable proposition if used for electrical generation so
presumably and electric car with battery's and a small turbine generator
? on Bio Fuel would be efficient or the turbine into a constantly
variable transmission perhaps.

[Ext User(John Henderson)]

Steve wrote:

> I remember in the 1960's, Chrysler showed 3 gas turnbine
> powered prototype vehicles - they even made it into a
> forgettable movie. But I was clicking around the net and
> stumbled onto this site:
>
> http://www.project1221.com/Gas_Turbine.html
>
> and it set me to wondering: Why not? Thinking back on the
> turbine brouhaha of the 60's where they appeared in, and were
> quickly banned from, Indy and F1, I wonder how much was
> technical and engineering reality, and how much was pressure
> from other interests. Now, from an admittedly hazy memory,
> arguements given at the time about scrapping turbines from
> cars were such things as acceleration, heat/fuel, cost, and
> start up delay.

On the lighter side, there's Jeremy Clarkson's gas turbine
bicycle:
http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22750-2435603,00.html

?I?m not loaning it to Richard Hammond because he?ll ride it
into a field and turn it upside down,? he said.

John

[Ext User(mark jb)]

> Saw last week a write up about teh US TV host Jay Leno and the Gas Turbine
> powered car he was part financier in
> a light body car with a 700+hp engine
> running on vegitable oil

that uses 29L/100km of biodiesel.
gas turbines are not suited to cars.

-mark

[Ext User(atec77)]

mark jb wrote:
>> Saw last week a write up about teh US TV host Jay Leno and the Gas Turbine
>> powered car he was part financier in
>> a light body car with a 700+hp engine
>> running on vegitable oil
>
> that uses 29L/100km of biodiesel.
> gas turbines are not suited to cars.
>
> -mark
>
>
SO going to a 200 hp version it will use 1/3 as much or less ?
seems suitable with the right drive line.

[Ext User(atec77)]

mark jb wrote:
>> Saw last week a write up about teh US TV host Jay Leno and the Gas Turbine
>> powered car he was part financier in
>> a light body car with a 700+hp engine
>> running on vegitable oil
>
> that uses 29L/100km of biodiesel.
> gas turbines are not suited to cars.
>
> -mark
>
>

[Ext User(Scotty)]

have a quick look at this site from our neighbours

http://aardvark.co.nz/pjet/

Hmmm Pulse Jet powered GoKart with after burners................





"Steve" <stephen.magee@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1163162628.372170.249990@k70g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>I remember in the 1960's, Chrysler showed 3 gas turnbine powered
> prototype vehicles - they even made it into a forgettable movie. But I
> was clicking around the net and stumbled onto this site:
>
> http://www.project1221.com/Gas_Turbine.html
>
> and it set me to wondering: Why not? Thinking back on the turbine
> brouhaha of the 60's where they appeared in, and were quickly banned
> from, Indy and F1, I wonder how much was technical and engineering
> reality, and how much was pressure from other interests. Now, from an
> admittedly hazy memory, arguements given at the time about scrapping
> turbines from cars were such things as acceleration, heat/fuel, cost,
> and start up delay. There may be more, but thats all I remember. Seems
> time has moved on and most, if not all of these, can be addressed by 40
> years worth of technical advances.
>
> Acceleration: Turbines - again, hazy memory and too lazy to Google -
> develop maximum torque at stall speed, so therefore theoretically do
> not require a gearbox. But because of the time it takes a turbine to
> spool up, Chrysler used a Torqueflite behind the prototypes to give
> them some acceleration. It seems to me that today the better arangement
> would be a turbine driving an alternator, in-wheel electric motors with
> supercapacitors and lithium batteries to provide the instant punch, the
> whole schmear controlled by the ubiquitous body/engine computer.
>
> Heat/fuel: The Chrslers had massive exhaust systems on them to cool the
> huge volume of air exhausted by the turbine. Great rectangular section
> things that looked more like a/c ducting in a house. I can think of
> many ricers who would cum just at the sight of them. :) Is this still
> an issue? The article on the link says that the huge amounts of air
> actually cool the turbine. Anybody here got anything they can add to
> that to gainsay, or support it? As for fuel - kero! Nowhere near the
> volatility of petrol and much safer to handle. Plus a turbine will burn
> just about anything liquid and flammable - can run it on Chivas Regal
> if you want ... (no! no! no! - not my Chivas)
>
> Cost: Supposedly because of the high quality manufacturing required due
> to the high rpm these things run at, the production costs can be very
> high. But given todays computer controlled laser measured production
> processes, it seems to me that really it would only be the extra costs
> of the exotic materials used. What are jet engines made out of, anyway?
>
> Start up delay: See the bit above about alternative power while the
> turbine spools up.
>
> Down side: Boring sound, probably noisy as all feck. Still, could be an
> interesting arguement between supporters: "The Pratt Whitney is shit,
> man!" "You should hear my Turbomanski's sing" "Rolls Royce make the
> only decent blade assembly" etc etc. Still be the same Holden/Ford
> arguement you still here today. :) (To keep things in tune with this
> groups normal mantra, the Mitsu 380 can have a japanese turbine, Holden
> and Falcon the US one produced by Pratt and Whitney.)
>
> Or - are we still going to have reciprocating i/c engines until the
> continent is swamped by global warming, and unlikely anything else will
> take over? Now personally, I think racing should exist to improve the
> product, not provide mindless entertainment as our current V8
> Stuporcars do, as Nascar does and as F1 is more and more becoming. In
> my ideal world, the Lotus turbine would still be being developed, have
> computer controlled variable wing geometry, full slick - no, not fully
> sick - tyres, active suspension etc etc. And, apart from the rubber,
> these would be incorporated into the Lotus you buy from the factory -
> and it would not be owned by Proton.
>
> OK, fingers need rest. This was supposed to be a simple question. :)
>
> Steve
>

[Ext User(atec77)]

Scotty wrote:
> have a quick look at this site from our neighbours
>
> http://aardvark.co.nz/pjet/
>
> Hmmm Pulse Jet powered GoKart with after burners................
>
>
>
>
>
6K to build a guided missile , he makes some very valid points.

[Ext User(the_dawggie)]

mark jb wrote:
> > Saw last week a write up about teh US TV host Jay Leno and the Gas Turbine
> > powered car he was part financier in
> > a light body car with a 700+hp engine
> > running on vegitable oil
>
> that uses 29L/100km of biodiesel.
> gas turbines are not suited to cars.

Yeah, I'm wondering, might not be a
good idea for stop and start traffic.

It's a great concept, however.

[Ext User(sgam@hotmail.com)]

Steve wrote:
> I remember in the 1960's, Chrysler showed 3 gas turnbine powered
> prototype vehicles - they even made it into a forgettable movie. But I
> was clicking around the net and stumbled onto this site:
>
> http://www.project1221.com/Gas_Turbine.html
>
> and it set me to wondering: Why not? Thinking back on the turbine
> brouhaha of the 60's where they appeared in, and were quickly banned
> from, Indy and F1, I wonder how much was technical and engineering
> reality, and how much was pressure from other interests. Now, from an
> admittedly hazy memory, arguements given at the time about scrapping
> turbines from cars were such things as acceleration, heat/fuel, cost,
> and start up delay. There may be more, but thats all I remember. Seems
> time has moved on and most, if not all of these, can be addressed by 40
> years worth of technical advances.
>
> Acceleration: Turbines - again, hazy memory and too lazy to Google -
> develop maximum torque at stall speed, so therefore theoretically do
> not require a gearbox.

I think that's incorrect. Sounds like you've mixed them up with the
properties of electric motors. Which is why diesel-electrics are used
in goods trains: massive low down torque to move big tonnage.
Otherwise you'd just use the diesel engines, rather than waste energy
in the conversion to electricity.

<snip>
> Start up delay: See the bit above about alternative power while the
> turbine spools up.
>
> Down side: Boring sound, probably noisy as all feck. Still, could be an
> interesting arguement between supporters: "The Pratt Whitney is shit,
> man!" "You should hear my Turbomanski's sing" "Rolls Royce make the
> only decent blade assembly" etc etc. Still be the same Holden/Ford
> arguement you still here today. :) (To keep things in tune with this
> groups normal mantra, the Mitsu 380 can have a japanese turbine, Holden
> and Falcon the US one produced by Pratt and Whitney.)

And all of them would sound not unlike an early Saab turbo or VL! :)
>
> Or - are we still going to have reciprocating i/c engines until the
> continent is swamped by global warming, and unlikely anything else will
> take over? Now personally, I think racing should exist to improve the
> product, not provide mindless entertainment as our current V8
> Stuporcars do, as Nascar does and as F1 is more and more becoming.

The rules in most of these classes expressly prohibit using electric
"booster" motors. Otherwise I think you'd see (especially in the WRC,
IMO) combined starter/alternator units on the main drive shaft of most
competition cars, used for regenerative braking and increased torque
(see my comment above on electric motors) out of slow corners. And if
the technology was developed to win races, it'd find its way quickly to
regular cars - as has all race winning technology. But if the rules
don't allow for designers to have more scope for invention, the
advantages can't flow on. Pity. You end up with V8 Supercars.

Cheers,
Steve also.

[Ext User(T.J.& L.K. Dunster)]

Why not go here
http://www.4wdonline.com/Rover/GasTurbines.html
and here and have a read.
http://www.rover.org.nz/pages/jet/jet5.htm

<sgam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1163220838.845155.99310@i42g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
>
> Steve wrote:
> > I remember in the 1960's, Chrysler showed 3 gas turnbine powered
> > prototype vehicles - they even made it into a forgettable movie. But I
> > was clicking around the net and stumbled onto this site:
> >
> > http://www.project1221.com/Gas_Turbine.html
<Snip>

[Ext User(JD)]

Steve wrote:

> I remember in the 1960's, Chrysler showed 3 gas turnbine powered
> prototype vehicles - they even made it into a forgettable movie. But I
> was clicking around the net and stumbled onto this site:
>
> http://www.project1221.com/Gas_Turbine.html
>
> and it set me to wondering: Why not? Thinking back on the turbine
> brouhaha of the 60's where they appeared in, and were quickly banned
> from, Indy and F1, I wonder how much was technical and engineering
> reality, and how much was pressure from other interests. Now, from an
> admittedly hazy memory, arguements given at the time about scrapping
> turbines from cars were such things as acceleration, heat/fuel, cost,
> and start up delay. There may be more, but thats all I remember. Seems
> time has moved on and most, if not all of these, can be addressed by 40
> years worth of technical advances.

As you say, Chrysler and Rover spent a lot of money on these 40-50 years
ago. As far as I can see the basic problem is probably that nobody has been
successful in making a reasonably fuel efficient turboshaft motor under
about 600hp. Even in aeroplanes where the weight, reliability and service
life are greater considerations than for cars, they are virtually unused
below around 400hp even in helicopters. A further problem is that as the
size goes down, so does the thermal inertial of the hot bits, making it
very easy to overheat them by momentary excess fuel, with disastrous
results because they operate so close to the failure temperature of the
materials to attain viable efficiency. Technically they are probably more
practical for heavy transport, but even in that application it would be
difficult to approach the fuel efficiency of modern high speed diesels.
Only the very largest gas turbines can do this, and there are no
applications for surface transport that need anything near that power
except for ships - and large marine diesels are even more efficient.
JD