the cvt would be a great development for turbine propulsion .by the time chrysler quit experimenting , the cvt had not gone beyond snowmobiles yet .

quote Originally posted by TK: Unless you want all or nothing, connecting a turbine to the wheels isn't a great idea. Turbines hate changing speed. One thing everyone complained about on the Chrysler Turbine was how slow to respond it was. Even the later versions didn't do much better. With a CVT, you could overcome a lot of that.

That affects aircraft also... More than one Navy pilot has crashed into a Carrier waiting for his turbines to spool after being a little late to realize he was below glideslope and needed to add some power.

Thats another good point. Why are all these modern hybrids gasoline-electric? The prius for example would be much more effective and durable if it had a 3 cylinder diesel. In that application especially where the downsides of a diesel don't really matter. Except for the fact that most prius owners don't actually know anything about cars or the enviroment and think diesel is worse. The prius is NOT enviromentally friendly. Its just not. So the only appeal to me is the great gas mileage and I feel like they could make it a lot better but they choose not to. Look at the 22re of yore. It was a great motor. HOW ABOUT A DIESEL TURBINE

I agree. For example in airliners, the engine is running a constant speed nearly all its life for thousands and thousands of hours with very few failures.

For a smaller turbine to be as fuel efficient as a larger pne it has to spin faster. Meaning they need to find a way to build a turbine that can run at 200k+ rpm

quote Originally posted by Will: That affects aircraft also... More than one Navy pilot has crashed into a Carrier waiting for his turbines to spool after being a little late to realize he was below glideslope and needed to add some power.

Ive pointed that out before. They hit full throttle just before the hook is supposed to catch. If it does, they chop it.

For a smaller turbine to be as fuel efficient as a larger one it has to spin faster. Meaning they need to find a way to build a turbine that can run easily at 250k rpm to have the same efficiency as a turbine twice its size that runs at 125k rpm.

quote Originally posted by RilesOfSmiles: For a smaller turbine to be as fuel efficient as a larger pne it has to spin faster. Meaning they need to find a way to build a turbine that can run at 200k+ rpm

How about 500,000 rpms?

"As a general rule, the smaller the engine, the higher the rotation rate of the shaft(s) must be to maintain tip speed. Blade-tip speed determines the maximum pressure ratios that can be obtained by the turbine and the compressor. This, in turn, limits the maximum power and efficiency that can be obtained by the engine. In order for tip speed to remain constant, if the diameter of a rotor is reduced by half, the rotational speed must double. For example, large Jet engines operate around 10,000 rpm, while micro turbines spin as fast as 500,000 rpm "

quote Originally posted by RilesOfSmiles: Is there an equation to convert thrust to horsepower?

Na horses dont fly.

wait..

maybe they do?

Oooooooohh!!!!!! That proves it! Next project is a turbine Fiero. Forget about efficiency!!

How about if they connect the turbine to a cvt and since it would still have to spin up from a stop there could be an electric motor just to provide instant and brutal acceleration then once the turbine has spun up it takes over control of the wheels.

[This message has been edited by RilesOfSmiles (edited 03-08-2013).]

I'd like a Fiero with an electric motor on each wheel for the acceleration, ease of computer controlled traction & stability control and regenerative braking. Four howling tires off the line might mitigate the lack of a howling exhaust note... A suitable size battery pack for the typical acceleration and steady speed needs of normal driving could be charged by a little fuel sipping diesel purring along at an efficient speed to meet the electricity needs. This forum seems to have the engineering and build abilities among its regular contributors - I wonder if it's feasible?

What about a turbine connected to a diesel engine connected to a gasoline engine connected to a steam engine connected to a generator connected to an electric motor? Can somebody saw inefficiency?

Andy Grannateli had a turbine powered car lead the Indy 500 for about 499 miles because of engine failure. I think it was the mid 1980s.

quote Originally posted by Bruce: Andy Grannateli had a turbine powered car lead the Indy 500 for about 499 miles because of engine failure. I think it was the mid 1980s.

Technically it wasnt engine failure. A 25 cent 'O' ring failed letting all the oil leak out. It had the race won till then...no one was touching it. Indy immediately banned them from future races so they wouldnt win from then on.

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: Technically it wasnt engine failure. A 25 cent 'O' ring failed letting all the oil leak out. It had the race won till then...no one was touching it. Indy immediately banned them from future races so they wouldnt win from then on.

I believe they only restricted in the inlet which effectively made them non-competitive. Didn't one run the following year too?

One issue was speed escalation. Some saw the turbine as taking the speeds into territories no one imagined. Indy still got faster but it took longer. If everyone went to turbines it would have gotten crazy in short order. Now it's crazy.

[This message has been edited by TK (edited 03-09-2013).]

quote Originally posted by Bruce: Andy Grannateli had a turbine powered car lead the Indy 500 for about 499 miles because of engine failure. I think it was the mid 1980s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STP-Paxton_Turbocar

Wiki says transmission bearing failure.

I remember listening to the 66 race, because it wasnt televised. I guess it could have been a trans seal that led to a bearing failure. I remember them after the race saying a rubber '0' ring was defective or overheated. I dont remember them saying it was an engine or trans. My memorys not perfect because I dont remember that car in the 67 race at all but I was in VN at the time. I dont always trust even Wiki 100% of the time. Ive known them to be wrong for a fact more than once.

quote Originally posted by RilesOfSmiles: Turbines when at a constant speed are WAY more efficient that a piston engine at a constant speed.

As others have already pointed out, this is grossly incorrect, especially at lower power settings. The standard measure of engine fuel efficiency is the Brake Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC), expressed in English units as pounds of fuel per horsepower-hour. Here are typical BSFC values for several engine types (lower = more efficient):

Automotive piston engine (gasoline) = 0.37 -> 0.45 lb / hp-hr
Wright 3350 turbo-compound piston aircraft engine (gasoline) = 0.40
Automotive turbo-Diesel engine = 0.33
Pratt & Whitney PW127 turboprop (ground idle) = 3.98
P&W PW127 (30% of rated power) = 0.85
P&W PW127 (70% of rated power) = 0.55
P&W PW127 (100% of rated power) = 0.49

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 03-10-2013).]

Cool discussion of something that will never happen....

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: As others have already pointed out, this is grossly incorrect, especially at lower power settings. The standard measure of engine fuel efficiency is the Brake Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC), expressed in English units as pounds of fuel per horsepower-hour. Here are typical BSFC values for several engine types (lower = more efficient): Automotive piston engine (gasoline) = 0.37 -> 0.45 lb / hp-hr Wright 3350 turbo-compound piston aircraft engine (gasoline) = 0.40 Automotive turbo-Diesel engine = 0.33 Pratt & Whitney PW127 turboprop (ground idle) = 3.98 P&W PW127 (30% of rated power) = 0.85 P&W PW127 (70% of rated power) = 0.55 P&W PW127 (100% of rated power) = 0.49

World's largest diesel engine is 0.28
http://www.autoblog.com/201...-109-000-horsepower/

quote Originally posted by Will: World's largest diesel engine is 0.28

Not a practical swap for a Fiero. Of course, that's just my opinion.

They have used turbine engines as the primary power source for Unlimited Hydoplane boat racing for many years (25?). I have no idea of the type of transmission used though, could even be the prop shaft is driven directly off the turbine shaft for all I know.

quote Originally posted by RilesOfSmiles: What about a turbine connected to a diesel engine connected to a gasoline engine connected to a steam engine connected to a generator connected to an electric motor? Can somebody saw inefficiency?

A hamster and many many gears..and some hamster food.

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: As others have already pointed out, this is grossly incorrect, especially at lower power settings. The standard measure of engine fuel efficiency is the Brake Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC), expressed in English units as pounds of fuel per horsepower-hour. Here are typical BSFC values for several engine types (lower = more efficient): Automotive piston engine (gasoline) = 0.37 -> 0.45 lb / hp-hr Wright 3350 turbo-compound piston aircraft engine (gasoline) = 0.40 Automotive turbo-Diesel engine = 0.33 Pratt & Whitney PW127 turboprop (ground idle) = 3.98 P&W PW127 (30% of rated power) = 0.85 P&W PW127 (70% of rated power) = 0.55 P&W PW127 (100% of rated power) = 0.49

Also remember that the Wright 3350 was designed in the 1930's and used in the 1940's...I wonder what the BSFC of a theoretical modern 18-cyl radial would be?

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: Also remember that the Wright 3350 was designed in the 1930's and used in the 1940's...I wonder what the BSFC of a theoretical modern 18-cyl radial would be?

More than 75 years after it was first introduced, the turbo-compound 3350 remains the most efficient (i.e. lowest BSFC) gasoline-fueled aircraft engine ever manufactured. I expect that some of the new aircraft turbo-Diesels will eventually surpass that, but the BSFC of today's typical gasoline-fueled piston aircraft engines ranges from 0.5 (normally aspirated) to 0.65 (turbocharged).

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 03-11-2013).]

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: They have used turbine engines as the primary power source for Unlimited Hydoplane boat racing for many years (25?). I have no idea of the type of transmission used though, could even be the prop shaft is driven directly off the turbine shaft for all I know.

http://www.u11racing.com/un..._group_technical.php

One other problem not yet mentioned with turbine engines for automotive use is that turbines are not only life limited by hours of operation, but also by the number of start/stop cycles, due to thermal fatigue in the "hot section" ... i.e. the combustion chamber(s) and turbine components. For example, one gas turbine I've seen requires an expensive hot-section overhaul every 24,000 hours of operation or every 800 starts, whichever occurs first. In typical automotive use, the hours of operation would not be a problem but the 800-start limit would probably be reached in about a year.

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 03-11-2013).]

As in the afore mentioned Jaguar C-X75, I believe that multiple micro turbines are the way to go for an extended range turbine/electric.
You only need about 35 hp to cruse down the highway if your not driving a barn. You could kick in a second, third or even fourth engine for driving in the mountains or for track day.

I also believe it would be best if the exhaust thrust were not wasted but instead contributed to propelling the car. Care would need to be taken to do no harm with the heat or thrust thus battery only mode should be used in town.

Turbines need massive amounts of air for breathing and cooling so mounting them outside the primary body should be considered. Also there is the danger from thrown blades. That is why all commercial aircraft have their engines separated both from each other and from the passengers. One engine failure can cascade causing all to fail if they are all lumped together as in the X-B70.

Military aircraft are different because in war safety is not everything that it is in peacetime.

Loosing all of you engines is not as bad in a car of course as long as there’s AAA.

What about connecting a turbine to a generator and connecting the generator to the electric motor. Would work great in a longitudinal setup. Kind of like the DC plasma fiero. But stick a generator and a turbine in front of the electric motors. Turbine would be sitting in the front right in front of the windshield. Batteries would sit above the transaxle because the powertrain would be so low they could easily fit. Of course that would completely destroy the weight distribution. What about using a single battery to kind of act like a linkage between the turbine and the electric motor? So the turbine would always be on when the car is running. Kind of like how the battery acts like a linkage between the alternator and the ignition system when the engine is running.