Locomotive turbine conversion?

[Anton]

First of all, sorry for crosspost, but I need very good and adequate answer.
This is the first time I write on these newsgroups, sorry on my bad
english.Because in croatian Internet web pages or gruops has nothing on this
issue, I hope that you will help me!
I'm a fan of machines, first of all piston engines, but last couple of
months I've been interested in something more exotic - gas turbine engines!
I have found on Internet many webpages with home made built gas trubine
engines, but all these are small, and inefficent in matter of, that you
can't use them even for gokart ( OK, some you can ).
So I came on a crazy idea, could it be posibble to make a gas turbine
engine, from a locomotive turbo?So, if I have can do this, could it be
posibble to put it in a car... ( I don't know why could not, I have whole
idea in my head, but only problem is gas turbine, could it work as I'm
planning )?What amount of power could that size turbo produce?Estimated?
Pictures of turbo that I'm talking about:

http://www.zeljeznice.net/turbo.jpg

This turbocharger is from this locomotive:

http://www.zeljeznice.net/slike/lokomotive/diesel/2042/Dsc04232.jpg

You can see also pictures of other croatian diesel locomotives on this page:

http://www.zeljeznice.net/lokomotive/diesel/indexd.htm

Click on links too see pictures, and if you don't see pictures when you
enter page, just click "Galerija" under image.

Croatian railways have GM EMD locomotives 2043, 2044, 2061, 2062 and 2063
series, from which 2044 and 2063 have turbochargers.Could that turbo's be
used for this kind of project?

--
Posjetite:
http://www.zeljeznice.net
http://www.zeljeznice.net/forum

[Rob Arndt]

Guiseppe Belluzzo used turbine engines on locomotives back before WW2
and that led him to design a circular flying bomb with a flat turbine
engine- the Turbo Proietti.
If he could design that then certainly there should be some way to
adapt a train turbine to a car...

Rob

[Eunometic]

I think conversions of gasoline based internal combustion engine
turbochargers to gas turbines are not that uncommon. I saw a Sydney
University student do it for his thesis once.

An issue with diesel turbochargers is that they may be made of alloys
less heat and corrosion resistent than that of gasoline ones since the
diesel cycle has a much lower exhaust temperature (550C) than a
gasoline engine (850C). This should effect life iof the turbocharger.
Many automotive turbo's are now ceramic based.

I believe the turbochargers of diesel trucks such as SAAB and Volvo and
other European types are turbocompounded have for many years had a
hydraulic torque coupling to put surplus power not needed for the
compressor back into the drive shaft.

[Simon Robbins]

"Anton" > wrote in message ...
> So I came on a crazy idea, could it be posibble to make a gas turbine
> engine, from a locomotive turbo?So, if I have can do this, could it be
> posibble to put it in a car... ( I don't know why could not, I have whole
> idea in my head, but only problem is gas turbine, could it work as I'm
> planning )?

Do we have a Darwin award in the making here? :^)

Si

[Keith W]

"Anton" > wrote in message ...
> First of all, sorry for crosspost, but I need very good and adequate
> answer.
> This is the first time I write on these newsgroups, sorry on my bad
> english.Because in croatian Internet web pages or gruops has nothing on
> this
> issue, I hope that you will help me!
> I'm a fan of machines, first of all piston engines, but last couple of
> months I've been interested in something more exotic - gas turbine
> engines!
> I have found on Internet many webpages with home made built gas trubine
> engines, but all these are small, and inefficent in matter of, that you
> can't use them even for gokart ( OK, some you can ).
> So I came on a crazy idea, could it be posibble to make a gas turbine
> engine, from a locomotive turbo?

Yes, its been done with the turbo's for road vehicles

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/S/scrapheap/challenges/jet_racer/diary_team02.html

> So, if I have can do this, could it be
> posibble to put it in a car... ( I don't know why could not, I have whole
> idea in my head, but only problem is gas turbine, could it work as I'm
> planning )?What amount of power could that size turbo produce?Estimated?
> Pictures of turbo that I'm talking about:
>
> http://www.zeljeznice.net/turbo.jpg
>

Sure BUT it would be a very complex build as you'd need to build a
compressor stage and burner cans and then couple the
high revving turbine to the transmission.

> This turbocharger is from this locomotive:
>
> http://www.zeljeznice.net/slike/lokomotive/diesel/2042/Dsc04232.jpg
>
> You can see also pictures of other croatian diesel locomotives on this
> page:
>
> http://www.zeljeznice.net/lokomotive/diesel/indexd.htm
>
> Click on links too see pictures, and if you don't see pictures when you
> enter page, just click "Galerija" under image.
>
> Croatian railways have GM EMD locomotives 2043, 2044, 2061, 2062 and 2063
> series, from which 2044 and 2063 have turbochargers.Could that turbo's be
> used for this kind of project?
>

Given enough time and money you can build anything and gas turbine cars
have been built. The real question is why ?

Such a vehicle is likely to be unreliable and extremely inefficient in
using fuel and probably could not be certified for road use.
A better approach may be a hybrid using a small gas turbine running
at constant speed to charge a battery for an electrically driven
vehicle.

Keith

[Simon Robbins]

"Keith W" > wrote in message
...
> Given enough time and money you can build anything and gas turbine cars
> have been built. The real question is why ?

Marine Turbine Technologies build production motorcycles and trucks with
helicopter turbo-shaft engines:

http://www.marineturbine.com/motorsports.asp

Si

[Eunometic]

Richard Riley wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 21:01:44 +0100, "Keith W"
> > wrote:
> :
> :Given enough time and money you can build anything and gas turbine cars
> :have been built. The real question is why ?
>
> I agree so far...
>
> :
> :Such a vehicle is likely to be unreliable and extremely inefficient in
> :using fuel and probably could not be certified for road use.
> :A better approach may be a hybrid using a small gas turbine running
> :at constant speed to charge a battery for an electrically driven
> :vehicle.
>
> But then I have to ask why back? In the size you're talking about, a
> piston engine has much better fuel specifics than a turbine, about .4
> against .6 or .7 - worse at low power setting. A small turbine just
> can't get the compression ratio that a piston can. And since it can't
> cool itself between combustion cycles, the metalurgy required means
> it's very expensive.


Gas Turbine Vehicles for land traction must be designed for different
characteristics than those for aircraft propulsion.

An aircraft requires takeoff power of about 100% or maximum power
followed by cruising power or around 65%.

A car cruises at about 10% to 20% at the most.

If cars opperated in the same regime as aircraft then they would be
more suitable.

A gas turbine for land traction is NOT designed to have a high
compression ratio. It requires these modifications:
1 a low compression ratio compressor that is more suitable for low load
factors.
2 a centrifugal style compressor that has a broad efficient opperating
range. (possibly variable geometry could be used.)
3 a heat regenerator: a device consisting of a roting mesh or cermaic,
glass or metal that soaks up heat wasted in the exhaust and then
preheats air after compression but before burning with fuel.

Such engines have been made, for instance Rovers engines of the 1950s
and 1960s.

advantages of the gas turbine are
1 about half the zize and weight of IC engines.
2 no torque pulsations therefore lighter drive train.
3 Indifferent to fuel: cetane and octane ratings are irrelevent. Can
run on virtually any gaseous or liquid fuel.
4 Easier to make.

Point 4 might be a suprise but it is in essence true. The problem with
gas turbines has always been not the manufacturing costs (which can be
made tiny by mass production and automation) but the costs of the raw
materials which are exotic alloys of nickel, chromium, rhenium,
zirconium, molydenum and cobalt. There material costs can not be
reduced.

Ceramics have held out much hope and producing Aluminium Nitride and or
Silicon Carbide turbine blades and turbine nozzles has been possible
for decades: they are reliable however they do not outperform advanced
alloys perhaps a little less. When ceramic opperating temperatures are
extended beyond that of metalls they will work but they are no longer
reliable for aviation.



>
> I can see the arguement for piston/storage (battery, flywheel,
> compressed gas, whatever) hybrid - a very small piston engine, with a
> lot less internal friction than a large piston engine, and running at
> or near it's optimal, tuned speed. Even better is a fuel cell hybrid.
> But once you're doing a hybrid, why give away half or more of your
> fuel specific just to go turbine for the power. Turbines are great
> for power to weight and maintence per operating hour - neither of
> which are the driving goals in a car.

I question whether maintenance per opperating hour are not a driving
factor. The US Auto industry as the British one before it has failed
to that fundemental lesson in time.

I personally would prefer and engine that never wears out and only
needs new bearings every 30,000 hours and new oil once per year.

They hybrid concept for gas turbines is probably quite practicable.

Another option is the closed cycle gas turbine that transfers heat into
the working fluid via heat exchanger walls and then cools them
likewise. The German divisions of swiss companies attempted such
engines in WW2 but the Swiss Company Bruckner Kanis made some engines
for electricity generation in the 1950s. They have excellent
multifuel capabillity including solids and their partial load abillity
is excellent because the working fluid can have its peressure altered
to suit the load conditions and also because regeneration is relatively
easy to accomplishin the future.


>
> By coincidence I've ridden in three turbine cars. The first was a
> 1963 Chrystler Turbine, one of 55 built. The second was a 73 'Vette
> with a PT-6, the spare engine from the STP Indy turbine car.
>
> The third was a Model T with an Allison 250 in it. It got 4.5 MPG.
> But that wasn't the point. :)

Apart from the infant Chrysler these were all not properly designed for
land traction use and oversized.

The Avco Lycoming AGT-1500 which is of similar configuration to the
T-53 is a case in point. It gave the Abrams tank unbeatable
performance that can only be matched by the latest MAN hyperbaric
diesels. The AGT-1500 has no regenerator but I suspect that tanks
doesn't spend too much time on very low partial load. The t-53 engine
was designed as a personal project intended for Helicopters by Franz
Anselem who was also the Chief Engineer for the Junkers Jumo 004 used
on the Me 262 jet fighter in another time.

As a side note during the second world war the Germans built the AFV GT
101 gas turbine for use in Panther and Tiger tanks. It was loosly a
scaled down BMW 003 turbojet with a similar anular combustion chamber
but with a unique exhaust duct and power takeoff to the rear. It was a
direct drive turbine that required a 3 speed governor opperated gearbox
plus torque converter to keep the main shaft opperating at around 80%
of rate shaft speed before it went to a normal transmission. The
engine had only half the fuel economy of a normal Panther petrol engine
but the Germans were after engines that were
1 Able to run on any fuel (they only had poor grade synthetics)
2 Easy to make (it would proably only have requred 500 man hours)
3 Give their tanks a power to weight ration advantage (critical for
tank combat)

As a side effect that direct drive gave 2600hp of engine braking and
the flywheel effect had the inertia of the entire 45 ton Panther tank
at 26mph which gave a smooth ride.

Further planed engines were the GT102 which had a second independent
turbine for power takeoff and the GT103 which used a quartz glass mesh
heat regenerator for a 30% improvement in fuel consumption.

After the war Rover Cars and Leyland Trucks produced technically
sucessfull engines with heat regenerators. There was a slight smell
of kerosene.

In general the gas turbine if properly designed is competitive with
petrol and diesel engines if a touch less efficient and more expensive.
They continue to be of great interest for trucks, ships etc.

The big advanate of the IC petrol and diesel engine is that they use
cheap materials despite their mechanical complexity. Only the possible
development of higher performance ceramics will change this.

[Keith W]

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 21:01:44 +0100, "Keith W"
> > wrote:
> :
> :Given enough time and money you can build anything and gas turbine cars
> :have been built. The real question is why ?
>
> I agree so far...
>
> :
> :Such a vehicle is likely to be unreliable and extremely inefficient in
> :using fuel and probably could not be certified for road use.
> :A better approach may be a hybrid using a small gas turbine running
> :at constant speed to charge a battery for an electrically driven
> :vehicle.
>
> But then I have to ask why back? In the size you're talking about, a
> piston engine has much better fuel specifics than a turbine, about .4
> against .6 or .7 - worse at low power setting. A small turbine just
> can't get the compression ratio that a piston can. And since it can't
> cool itself between combustion cycles, the metalurgy required means
> it's very expensive.
>

The poster was asking about gas turbine implementations.
I answered him, I am not proposing that Ford start mass
producing them.

Keith

[Anton]

"Keith W" > wrote

> Yes, its been done with the turbo's for road vehicles
>
http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/S/scrapheap/challenges/jet_racer/
diary_team02.html

Hmm...That text is little bit confusing, in fact I don't really understand
what are they talking about...They have said much, but still, nothing.Only
some story from that race.

> Sure BUT it would be a very complex build as you'd need to build a
> compressor stage and burner cans and then couple the
> high revving turbine to the transmission.

I know.High revs can be solved with reductor.Now, I need more information
about compressor stage and burner cans :)
I presume that all this could fit to a car, for example Ford Cortina, or
something like that.
How strong must be, I mean how much thrust could turbocharger from car
produce?Could I make a one man vehicle from that?

> Given enough time and money you can build anything and gas turbine cars
> have been built. The real question is why ?

I know that gas turbine cars have been built, but the real question is, have
they been built in private garages? :)
Why?
Why do people climb on mountains, why do people surf, why do people like
diving..? :)
I hope you understand what am I aiming for.I want to have a first gas
turbine powered car in Croatia. :) Is that enough? :)
Jet powered streetrace car...Hmm...Nice... ( like Homer Simpson would said )
:D

> Such a vehicle is likely to be unreliable and extremely inefficient in
> using fuel and probably could not be certified for road use.

That isn't my intention at all.I want to make that car, not for daily use,
but for streetrace, for example, why not?That would be a show... ;)

> A better approach may be a hybrid using a small gas turbine running
> at constant speed to charge a battery for an electrically driven
> vehicle.

If I wanted to do that, I would go on some 1.4 liter diesel engine, which
can I buy almost everywhere and make electric car. :)

[[email protected]]

Anton wrote:
> "Keith W" > wrote
>
> > Yes, its been done with the turbo's for road vehicles
>
> > Sure BUT it would be a very complex build as you'd need to build a
> > compressor stage and burner cans and then couple the
> > high revving turbine to the transmission.
>
> I know.High revs can be solved with reductor.Now, I need more information
> about compressor stage and burner cans :)
> I presume that all this could fit to a car, for example Ford Cortina, or
> something like that.
> How strong must be, I mean how much thrust could turbocharger from car
> produce?Could I make a one man vehicle from that?
>

So... When I was young, my father told me, "If you have to ask how much
it costs, then you probably can't afford it."

I work in computer software. Once a month or so, someone will ask me,
"how hard would it be to build a program which does XYZ?"

The answer: "That depends."

It depends especially on WHO is building the program.

Have you totally rebuilt an old car, with your own hands, from the
wheels up?

Have you ever taken a car and fitted a much larger engine to it?

Have you ever worked with turbine engines before? (Obviously not, based
on your questions)

If you read about how the Wright brothers built their airplane, they
tackled it in pieces, one step at a time. First they built kites, then
gliders, a wind tunnel, did lots of experiments, another glider, and
then the Flyer. They learned how to solve each problem one at a time.

In order to succeed, you first need to turn your turbochargers into a
turbine engine. Before you can even begin to think about doing this you
need to learn how turbines work. Then you can begin laying out a plan.
This is a project that would probably keep you busy for 5 years if you
work part-time.

As for how much power it puts out, who knows? There's a ton of
variables in there. I'd suspect a few hundred horsepower, maybe more,
quite likely less. It will probably turn out heavier than an equivalent
piston engine, and thus the car will actually go slower. How cool will
that be?

Best,
-cwk.

[Keith W]

"Anton" > wrote in message ...
> "Keith W" > wrote
>
>> Yes, its been done with the turbo's for road vehicles
>>
> http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/S/scrapheap/challenges/jet_racer/
> diary_team02.html
>
> Hmm...That text is little bit confusing, in fact I don't really understand
> what are they talking about...They have said much, but still, nothing.Only
> some story from that race.
>
>> Sure BUT it would be a very complex build as you'd need to build a
>> compressor stage and burner cans and then couple the
>> high revving turbine to the transmission.
>
> I know.High revs can be solved with reductor.Now, I need more information
> about compressor stage and burner cans :)

Then visit a library


> I presume that all this could fit to a car, for example Ford Cortina, or
> something like that.

Its been done so its possible.

> How strong must be, I mean how much thrust could turbocharger from car
> produce?Could I make a one man vehicle from that?
>

Thrust is meaningless unless you intend making a jet powered car.

>> Given enough time and money you can build anything and gas turbine cars
>> have been built. The real question is why ?
>
> I know that gas turbine cars have been built, but the real question is,
> have
> they been built in private garages? :)
> Why?
> Why do people climb on mountains, why do people surf, why do people like
> diving..? :)
> I hope you understand what am I aiming for.I want to have a first gas
> turbine powered car in Croatia. :) Is that enough? :)

No

> Jet powered streetrace car...Hmm...Nice... ( like Homer Simpson would
> said )
> :D
>

First learn a little about engineering


> > Such a vehicle is likely to be unreliable and extremely inefficient in
>> using fuel and probably could not be certified for road use.
>
> That isn't my intention at all.I want to make that car, not for daily use,
> but for streetrace, for example, why not?That would be a show... ;)
>

And almost certainly illegal.

>> A better approach may be a hybrid using a small gas turbine running
>> at constant speed to charge a battery for an electrically driven
>> vehicle.
>
> If I wanted to do that, I would go on some 1.4 liter diesel engine, which
> can I buy almost everywhere and make electric car. :)
>
>

Indeed

Keith



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Anton]

> wrote

> So... When I was young, my father told me, "If you have to ask how much
> it costs, then you probably can't afford it."

Not true.

> Have you totally rebuilt an old car, with your own hands, from the
> wheels up?

Yes, if you have to ask, you can see it on this web page:

http://free-vk.t-com.hr/taunus

Switched engines, completely restaureted V6, new brakes, and all other
things.That chrashed my brother, so I have done same thing with another one,
in which I added completely new exhaust system, painted and all bodywork by
myself.

> Have you ever taken a car and fitted a much larger engine to it?

Read up.Before that 2.8 V6, engine vas 1.6 4-cyl.

> Have you ever worked with turbine engines before? (Obviously not, based
> on your questions)

No.I prefer NA engines.Even now.I'm interested in turbines as engines, not
like add on to piston engines.

> In order to succeed, you first need to turn your turbochargers into a
> turbine engine. Before you can even begin to think about doing this you
> need to learn how turbines work. Then you can begin laying out a plan.

I know principles, after all, I'm studying railway traffic, and we have many
mechanical courses.

> This is a project that would probably keep you busy for 5 years if you
> work part-time.

You mean on locomotive turbine into car, or just plain turbocharger
converting to gas turbine?If is this last, then you must se what people on
intrent have made for month or less with scrap turbocharges from local
junkyard.

> As for how much power it puts out, who knows? There's a ton of
> variables in there. I'd suspect a few hundred horsepower, maybe more,
> quite likely less. It will probably turn out heavier than an equivalent
> piston engine, and thus the car will actually go slower.

Why?That doesn't mean that it must be like you said.

> How cool will
> that be?

Why that tone?I mean, what is so wrong if I ask something like this?A guy
near my town built a motorcycle with tractor diesel engine.It's slow, but
it's cool, so?
A guy in Serbia made Yugo who works on wood?I mean, wood is fuel, and the
principle is,hm...You'll understand, I don't have that much knowledge in
english...

[Anton]

"Keith W" > wrote

> Then visit a library

OK.

> Its been done so its possible.

Good...

> Thrust is meaningless unless you intend making a jet powered car.

Yes, I know, mea culpa, I mixed some things.My intention is to make traction
car, not thrust.

> No

Why not?

> First learn a little about engineering

Like I said post before, I know mechanical engineering, but I haven't never
been interested in turbines.I'm working all by myself on my car.Ask me
anything about piston engines and I'll tell you.

> And almost certainly illegal.

Look, I don't know where you from, but trust me, it's legal, here it is.I
don't know for you and your country.

> Indeed

Yes?

[Rich S.]

"Anton" > wrote in message ...
>
> Look, I don't know where you from, but trust me, it's legal, here it is.I
> don't know for you and your country.

Wow, Anton. I'm impressed! You were a lot more polite than most people would
be after receiving such a snotty, rude reply.

Good luck in your project.

Rich S.

[Keith W]

"Rich S." > wrote in message
...
> "Anton" > wrote in message ...
>>
>> Look, I don't know where you from, but trust me, it's legal, here it is.I
>> don't know for you and your country.
>
> Wow, Anton. I'm impressed! You were a lot more polite than most people
> would be after receiving such a snotty, rude reply.
>

If you think my reply was snotty and rude you've led
a very sheltered life.

Keith

[Rich S.]

"Keith W" > wrote in message
...
>
> If you think my reply was snotty and rude you've led
> a very sheltered life.

I can only hope that it continues. No one with whom I associate would ever
be that nasty without direct provocation.

Did someone from Croatia **** in your cornflakes?

Rich S.

[[email protected]]

The UK's APT (Advanced Passenger Train) of the 1970s used 6 gas
turbines to power it. Never made it into service.
pics of one of the turbines. http://www.apt-e.org/index/apt73.htm

David

[Anton]

"Rich S." > wrote

> Wow, Anton. I'm impressed! You were a lot more polite than most people
would
> be after receiving such a snotty, rude reply.

Well... :) I don't know what kind of people are here, but on croatian
usenet, I had many flames with very juicy swearwords :)
People often do know send rude reply's, before that made me angry, but
nowadays, I became numb for that.It isn't worth of making myself nervous...

> Good luck in your project.

Thanks!Do you have some of your own experience?At least with car turbo's?

[Anton]

"Rich S." > wrote

> Did someone from Croatia **** in your cornflakes?

LOL :)

[Keith W]

"Rich S." > wrote in message
...
> "Keith W" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> If you think my reply was snotty and rude you've led
>> a very sheltered life.
>
> I can only hope that it continues. No one with whom I associate would ever
> be that nasty without direct provocation.
>
> Did someone from Croatia **** in your cornflakes?
>
> Rich S.
>

Lets see I gave him pointers to people who had built
such a machine, advice on a method of coupling the
drive and made the suggestion that using such a machine
for street racing may be illegal, as it would be in the UK.

So what assistance did you provide oh magnanimous one ?

Keith



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Keith W]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> The UK's APT (Advanced Passenger Train) of the 1970s used 6 gas
> turbines to power it. Never made it into service.
> pics of one of the turbines. http://www.apt-e.org/index/apt73.htm
>
> David
>

That was only the experimental version, the prototype and production
versions
were intended to be electrically hauled. The BoBo power car design was used
to build a new locomotive, the Class 91 capable of 140mph, which pulls the
Inter City 225 on the East Coast main line today.

Keith



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Sport Pilot]

Eunometic wrote:
> I think conversions of gasoline based internal combustion engine
> turbochargers to gas turbines are not that uncommon. I saw a Sydney
> University student do it for his thesis once.
>
> An issue with diesel turbochargers is that they may be made of alloys
> less heat and corrosion resistent than that of gasoline ones since the
> diesel cycle has a much lower exhaust temperature (550C) than a
> gasoline engine (850C). This should effect life iof the turbocharger.
> Many automotive turbo's are now ceramic based.
>
> I believe the turbochargers of diesel trucks such as SAAB and Volvo and
> other European types are turbocompounded have for many years had a
> hydraulic torque coupling to put surplus power not needed for the
> compressor back into the drive shaft.

Most of the turbocharger conversions are using diesel, or kersosene for
fuel. Gas is much too volitle and dangerous.

[[email protected]]

You're right - but it was still the nicest of the APTs! would look
state of the art, even today.The protype had a few things batting
against it - one of which was that the turbines were built by Leyland
....this was around the same time they were churning out
Princesses/Ambassadors and Allegros...

David

[Rob Arndt]

As a note, Jay Leno's jet turboshaft motorcycle:

http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/tb_lg_0108AUCCAB.jpg

Remember that thing?

Rob

[Darrel Toepfer]

Rob Arndt wrote:

> As a note, Jay Leno's jet turboshaft motorcycle:
>
> http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/tb_lg_0108AUCCAB.jpg
>
> Remember that thing?

Made in New Iberia, Louisiana...

[[email protected]]

Anton wrote:
> > wrote
>

> > Have you ever taken a car and fitted a much larger engine to it?
>
> Read up.Before that 2.8 V6, engine vas 1.6 4-cyl.

OK, good then. A lot of times people ask questions like this and don't
really have the slightest idea what they're getting into. Clearly you
have a little more experience.

> > Have you ever worked with turbine engines before? (Obviously not, based
> > on your questions)
>
> No.I prefer NA engines.Even now.I'm interested in turbines as engines, not
> like add on to piston engines.

Yeah, I know, I mean "gas turbine engines," not turbo/supecharged
engines.

> > In order to succeed, you first need to turn your turbochargers into a
> > turbine engine. Before you can even begin to think about doing this you
> > need to learn how turbines work. Then you can begin laying out a plan.
>
> I know principles, after all, I'm studying railway traffic, and we have many
> mechanical courses.

Well, when you asked, "what is a compressor," I wondered. That is like
asking a piston mechanic, "what is a cylinder?"

> > This is a project that would probably keep you busy for 5 years if you
> > work part-time.
>
> You mean on locomotive turbine into car, or just plain turbocharger
> converting to gas turbine?If is this last, then you must se what people on
> intrent have made for month or less with scrap turbocharges from local
> junkyard.

Are they generating useful power, or just making a lot of noise? Making
noise is easy, making power takes engineering skill. That's what will
take you time. Are they skilled mechanics doing their second or third
project, or a first-time experimenter just like you? I'll bet the
second time you do this, you will do it a lot faster than the first.

> > As for how much power it puts out, who knows? There's a ton of
> > variables in there. I'd suspect a few hundred horsepower, maybe more,
> > quite likely less. It will probably turn out heavier than an equivalent
> > piston engine, and thus the car will actually go slower.
>
> Why?That doesn't mean that it must be like you said.

Well, let's look at it this way. Teams of engineers, with literally
billions of dollars to spend, build turbines that put out maybe 800
horsepower (and of course a lot larger too). Of course, you don't have
to worry about safety or reliability, so your job is easier that way,
but you're also working with inferior materials and knowledge (not
meant as criticism, just fact).

You may be able to get 500, 700, 1000HP out of a turbine but my guess
is that your turbine will end up weighing a LOT. Weight is not the
first concern when building parts that go on locomotives- durability
and low maintenance cost matter a lot more. The result is that heavier,
cheaper materials are used and often overbuilt (adding more weight).

Weight is your enemy. If my car has the same power as yours, and mine
is heavier, then your will be faster. Simple physics.

> > How cool will
> > that be?
>
> Why that tone?I mean, what is so wrong if I ask something like this

Sorry, I'm not trying to be discouraging, just realistic. If you think
you can build a turbine in a few months that will make your car go
super-fast, you're probably going to be disappointed. If you're ready
to spend a couple of years in the shop, building, testing, fixing,
building, fixing, testing, then you just may be able to get something
pretty cool.

Hey, really, I wish you the best of luck. I hope it works.

Best,
-cwk.

[Ron Webb]

Hello

I know this is not exactly what you guys are up to, but you might find it
interesting anyway.
http://www.junkyardjet.com/

There are many sites like this. Guys build jet engines out of automotive
turbochargers, usually with something like an old fire extinguisher for the
expansion chamber, and the burner assembly form a household heating oil
furnace to supply the fuel feed and ignition. Lots of them actually working.

[Rob Arndt]

Before the 1963 Chrysler gas turbine car was the Rover JET-1:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/8/newsid_2516000/2516271.stm

Rob

[Rob Arndt]

B-17 with claimed gas turbine engine, WW2:

http://www.de220.com/Strange%20Stuff/TEST-80G419784.jpg

Rob

p.s. What was the engine?

[[email protected]]

there was a site in New Zealand put up by a guy building his own
pulsejet powered cruise missile with parts from hardware stores etc.
Main site: http://www.aardvark.co.nz/pjet/

....and his cruise missile project:
http://www.aardvark.co.nz/pjet/cruise.shtml

David

[[email protected]]

looks the the result of a brief but passionate affaire between a B-17
and a P-47 (P&W dbl wasp?)

[Rob Arndt]

Another Jet Motorcycle:

http://www.motorbike-search-engine.co.uk/classic_bikes/80.jpg

Rob

[Herb]

Rob Arndt wrote:

> B-17 with claimed gas turbine engine, WW2:
>
> http://www.de220.com/Strange%20Stuff/TEST-80G419784.jpg
>
> Rob
>
> p.s. What was the engine?

There were three B-17 airframes after the war that were given to
Curtiss-Wright, GE and Allison for testing turboprops. The one in the
pic is (I believe) the Wright engine, it was a 5500 hp turboprop,
they'd take off on the Cyclones, start the "5th engine" and then
feather all 4 Cyclones and fly on the turboprop. There's a fair write
up in some of the modelers books that I have, will have to put the
reference in later. One of the "5th engine" test beds actually had a
jet engine mounted in the nose position with the discharge under the
plane. The Wright test bed was donated to the New England Air Museum
where it was severely damaged during a tornado in 1979 if I remember
correctly. The airframe minus the engine mount was traded to a war
bird restorer in Kissimmee, FL in exchange for the restoration of
NEAM's B-25J. My understanding is that the airframe has been rebuilt
and restored to original flying airworthy condition. I'll add the
reference for the pics and some more info on the test beds tomorrow
morning when I get home.
Herb

[Peter Stickney]

Herb wrote:

> There were three B-17 airframes after the war that were given to
> Curtiss-Wright, GE and Allison for testing turboprops. The one in
> the pic is (I believe) the Wright engine, it was a 5500 hp
> turboprop, they'd take off on the Cyclones, start the "5th engine"
> and then
> feather all 4 Cyclones and fly on the turboprop.

The ultimate example of that sort of testbed would have to be the
C-124C (54-1069) that Pratt & Whitney used to flight test the T-57
turboprop. (The T-57 was a turboprop version of the J57 (JT-3)
turbojet. It put out something like 15,000 SHP). Somewhere around
here I've got a picture of it cruising along on the T-57, with all 4
recips shut down. Given that Shakey was a 2-story beast about the
size of a medium-sized warehouse, it may well have been the largest
single-engine airplane. (Well, sort of.)

--
Pete Stickney
Java Man knew nothing about coffee.

[Herb]

I misspoke, which is a kind way of saying that I forgot, it was Pratt &
Whitney, Wright and Allison. The name of the book that I have for
reference is the "B-17 Flying Fortress in Detail and Scale" by Alwyn T.
Lloyd, part 2, the Derivatives. P&W tested the 5000 hp XT-34
turboprop, Wright the 5500 hp XT-35 (and used it to test the R-3350
radial), Allison the 3750 hp T-56 turboprop. An "Air Combat" magazine
B-17 special edition dated Fall, 1985 has another pic of the P&W Fort
flying on the turboprop alone and a pic of another B-17 modified for
testing a pure jet in a pod under the nose. The detail and scale
series are published by Aero, a division of Tab Books, and are for
modelers to use making scale models. They're pretty interesting if
you're a B-17 nut, like I am. Herb






> There were three B-17 airframes after the war that were given to
> Curtiss-Wright, GE and Allison for testing turboprops. The one in the
> pic is (I believe) the Wright engine, it was a 5500 hp turboprop,
> they'd take off on the Cyclones, start the "5th engine" and then
> feather all 4 Cyclones and fly on the turboprop. There's a fair write
> up in some of the modelers books that I have, will have to put the
> reference in later. One of the "5th engine" test beds actually had a
> jet engine mounted in the nose position with the discharge under the
> plane. The Wright test bed was donated to the New England Air Museum
> where it was severely damaged during a tornado in 1979 if I remember
> correctly. The airframe minus the engine mount was traded to a war
> bird restorer in Kissimmee, FL in exchange for the restoration of
> NEAM's B-25J. My understanding is that the airframe has been rebuilt
> and restored to original flying airworthy condition. I'll add the
> reference for the pics and some more info on the test beds tomorrow
> morning when I get home.
> Herb