Whatever Happened to Reengineering the Gas Turbine Car - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: jonovid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 29, 2017, 04:53:30 am
content: whatever happened to the gas turbine car, this is one cool sounding vehicleChrysler Turbine Car Ride With Sound!1962 to 1964 Chrysler Turbine Carhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Turbine_Carthe gas turbine electric vehicle vs the all electric battery vehicle.some of my ideas on reengineering the gas turbine vehicle.gas electric turboshaft powers theaveragevehicle energy demand.with use of twin turbo out of phase acousticnoise cancellationon a common axle, use of exhaust heat recuperatorsnow add supercapacitors to an electric powertrain for peak demand and also for regenerative braking.a vehicle that can run on a range of fuels including diesel, biofuels, compressed natural gas and liquid petroleum gas.

author: f5r5e5d
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 29, 2017, 05:41:02 am
content: NOx regulation?

author: jonovid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 29, 2017, 09:21:14 am
content: Quote from: f5r5e5d on December 29, 2017, 05:41:02 amisn't that always the case. was a time when anything was possible .now its only what is set by bureaucracy.I am sure Elon Musk's hyperloop design fails occupant safety regulations for emergency exit doors in the event of fire in the cab.maybe he gets a free pass on that one?besides yet to be invented improvements in technology.this is a better video of 1963 chrysler turbine car1963 Chrysler Turbine: Ultimate Edition - Jay Leno's Garage

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 29, 2017, 09:42:23 am
content: Gas turbines back then were direcly driving the engine, rather than having an electric stage, which meant laggy throttle and acceleration response and other issues.I don't think a turbine powered hybrid is going to be widely accepted any more. Even though piston engines aren't ideal, they're very well developed and quite cheap. Meanwhile, full on electric cars are being improved rapidly and possibly most importantly, legislation seems to favour full electric cars every more over hybrid solutions.I think I read about a company working on turbine solutions though, so maybe we'll see some examples pop up.

author: jonovid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 29, 2017, 11:10:46 am
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on December 29, 2017, 09:42:23 ammaybe the trucking industry holds the most promise for the turbine as part of hybrid hydrogen turbine electric powertrains in prime movers.as the energy density of today's battery technology is still not suitable for long-distance trucking with a full payload.when there is no time for sitting idle charging batteries.

author: PChi
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 29, 2017, 11:27:16 am
content: Rover also built a few gas turbine powered passenger cars and entered the Rover BRM in the Le Mans 24 hour race back in the sixties. But fuel consumption was too high along with the cost of the turbine doomed the project.If the problem of separating hydrogen economically is solved then a fuel cell car seems to be the best solution. There are a few filling stations in the UK and have seen a Toyota Mirai on the M25.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 29, 2017, 12:13:16 pm
content: Quote from: PChi on December 29, 2017, 11:27:16 amLeyland also built some gas turbine powered trucks, which actually went to market. I don't know if that was a separate effort from the Rover cars, or if the same engineering team was involved in both. I don't think a gas turbine powered Rover car was ever sold to the public.

author: ajb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 29, 2017, 05:19:26 pm
content: Really the only advantage that gas turbines have over reciprocating engines is in power to weight and power to size ratios, which is why they're used in aircraft. They don't throttle well, and suffer quite severe thermal cycling at startup/shutdown, so they're not a great fit for mechanical coupling (where throttle range is required), OR battery series hybrid arrangements (where you want to be able to cycle the engine on/off at will). I suspect the startup fuel penalty is also much more severe with a gas turbine.The real efficiency advantage of gas turbines is in fixed plants where you can add a steam turbine cycle driven by the tremendous waste heat output of the gas turbine, and often still have some heat left over for other uses. That can take the efficiency from ~40% to ~60%, but really kills the power to weight/size advantage.

author: dr.diesel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 29, 2017, 05:25:58 pm
content: I have seen that car in person running, no ride unfortunately.It was surprisingly smooth, demonstrated by placing a nickel on the engine, on edge, while running.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 29, 2017, 05:37:31 pm
content: Quote from: dr.diesel on December 29, 2017, 05:25:58 pmI would expect a turbine engine to be smooth, smoother than a piston engine with mass flopping back and forth in every direction imaginable.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 29, 2017, 06:18:37 pm
content: Mr Royce and Mr Rolls would beg to differ on pistons not being smooth, they did make engines that were almost vibration free.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2017, 03:31:12 am
content: Quote from: dr.diesel on December 29, 2017, 05:25:58 pmAnd the next time my vehicle spec calls for balancing a nickel on the powerplant I will call for a turbine. Otherwise a little balancing and a low pass filter between the engine and the vehicle (a rubber motor mount) solves the problem for the passengers. In many modern cars it is difficult to tell if the engine is running.The best evidence that there is no pony in this pen is that the portable generator market hasn't jumped on small gas turbines. That market places a premium on quiet and is still dominated by reciprocating engines.

author: Cyberdragon
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2017, 03:53:28 am
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on December 30, 2017, 03:31:12 amThey exist...http://www.gasturbineworld.co.uk/dynajetmicroturbine.htmlhttp://www.bladonjets.com(note, trailer sized gensets it seems, not small portables)EDIT: the above machine is a weak pile of crap, but the bottom is more promising.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2017, 04:15:13 am
content: So one company has failed in the market, and the other is transportable, not portable.There are many, many examples of turbine generator sets in 12kW and above sizes. I was surprised to even see your failed product in the 500W to 3kW market.Just for reference, the charging engine in the Chevy Volt is rated at about 80 HP, or about 60kW. The trailer doesn't scale well to the application.

author: Alex Eisenhut
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2017, 06:23:46 am
content: My favorite 1960s turbine car.As you can see with the three-pipe arrangement, it has a waste gate, it has no throttling issues. It just jams the gate shut and you have 100% torque as quickly as gas is generated.A nice French videoBasically he's saying how great it is.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2017, 07:35:45 am
content: Quote from: ajb on December 29, 2017, 05:19:26 pmAn even bigger issue is reliability. Look at the TBO of a modern piston aircraft engine and compare that to a modern gas turbine, the turbine can run far longer between overhauls. Reliability is improved too, back in the piston engine era it was not at all unusual to have to shut down an engine in flight, today it is extremely rare.Despite that I would still happily pay a premium to fly on something like a DC-3 or a Lockheed Constellation over a boring but dependable 737. From a fuel efficiency standpoint the old piston engines are still more efficient than turbines and that's what really did them in for land use. There was quite a bit of development back in the 60s, the Chrysler turbine car was one of them, there were several turbine powered trains, there are turbine powered ships. All had one fatal flaw and that is poor fuel efficiency. Turbines are used when you need tons of power that can run for hours on end in a relatively compact space. For everything else, piston engines still reign.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2017, 05:26:00 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on December 30, 2017, 07:35:45 amThe problem with piston engined aircraft is that you'll typically have a propeller attached to it. This makes for a rather ride when compared to turbine powered craft. It's fun to fly as a novelty, but no way I would want to traverse the world that way. Turbine aircraft are ridiculously comfortable, even without taking the fact they're aluminium and composite tubes hurtling around a thin -50 Celsius atmosphere near the speed of sound into account.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2017, 05:39:07 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on December 30, 2017, 05:26:00 pmModern propeller aircraft above a fairly small size are all powered by gas turbines. Modern propellers still can't get these aircraft quite as quiet and smooth as a high bypass ducted fan, but they are pretty reasonable, and offer the same reliability as a high bypass ducted fan.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2017, 06:09:52 pm
content: Turbine engines were used very successfully in Indy car racing for a while. The power to weight ratio and reliability served them in good stead. Since Indy racing is not an unlimited race (limits on engines, car size and so on are placed to make them competitive) rules were promptly put into place to limit area of the air intake. After a couple of years of fiddling with these rules the turbines were brought into line with the piston engines. What really drove turbines out of these races was when strict limits on total fuel usage were added. The turbines just couldn't compete.

author: altmangf
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: December 30, 2017, 07:04:47 pm
content: This book has a lot of information on the Chrysler program. A good read.The cost of materials which could survive the high temperatures in the turbine were a significant factor in program’s termination. Other factors were political considerations related to the bailout of Chrysler, the cost of the program, and the new emissions standards being phased in during the late 1970’s.TL;DR The engines were very expensive to build, had poor fuel economy, didn’t meet emissions standards, and Chrylser ran out of money.At least, that’s according to the book.Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

author: babysitter
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2017, 07:43:50 pm
content: Was this here already?(From a horn and siren collector)

author: stj
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2017, 05:35:43 pm
content: the concept would be better suited to a bus or coach.constantly in use, and a heat exchanger could heat the interior.another use is trains.russia has some new trains for arctic use that re-purpose jet turbines from supersonic bombers.i imagine there is nobody around to compain about the noise!!

author: SkyMaster
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2017, 08:04:00 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on December 30, 2017, 05:26:00 pmWhat is wrong with propellers?Turboprop aircraft are turbine powered. Turboprop aircraft have turbine engines connected to propellers.Bombardier's Q series (based on the Crash 8 ) and ATR are still very popular. The King Air is still popular, and was introduced in the '60s.The first jet airliner were "pure jet" (or low bypass), they are all now equipped with high bypass engine (it is a very large "propeller" hidden inside an enclosure).We all know that Joe Everybody is afraid when he sees an aircraft mechanic opening an engine cowl door on the aircraft he is sitting in. The same Joe Everybody probably feel safer when he does not see any propeller turning.Yes, jet airliner fly higher and faster, but turboprop are more fuel efficient.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2017, 08:10:58 pm
content: Quote from: SkyMaster on December 31, 2017, 08:04:00 pmWhat's wrong with them? They're shaky and much less comfortable for passengers as a result of it. I remember the dismay of someone who got to ride on a propeller driven airliner first the first time. He didn't enjoy that very much at all. We're not even talking about the bigger probability of turbulence at lower altitudes.Also, the fuel economy thing is a bit more complicated. I think that has been explained quite well in the link below.https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/1814/which-engine-is-more-efficient-between-turboprop-vs-jet

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2017, 08:24:33 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on December 31, 2017, 08:10:58 pmIn my experience, the only thing less comfortable about turbo-props is they are made for short flights, so the operators try to get away with packing the passengers in real tight. If you try a turbo-prop laid out for more comfortable flying they are fine. Its true that lower altitudes can be more bumpy, but if you operate a jet on the same route as a short hop turbo-prop it has to operate at a similar altitude to the turbo-prop. It just doesn't have time to get up to really high altitudes. It just goes up for half the flight, then starts heading down.I used to frequently use a route which is served by a 737 on some days, and by an ATR42 on others. The only real difference in comfort was from the more cramped seat in the ATR42.

author: SkyMaster
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2017, 08:41:25 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on December 31, 2017, 08:24:33 pmThe fact that Turboprop are typically operated by low cost / feeder airlines does not help for the comfort; with the tighter seat pitch.But yes, main disadvantage is the lower altitude. Even if you are a passenger in a roomy charted King Air, the aircraft is flying around 25,000 ft, and if the weather is bad even at this altitude there is nothing the crew can do about it.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2017, 08:59:09 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on December 31, 2017, 08:24:33 pmLet's just say I know a few people who don't quite agree

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 03, 2018, 01:13:44 am
content: The only prop plane I've been on was the turboprop powered Bobardier Q400-8, lovely craft, I thought it flew really nicely. There was a bit more vibration on takeoff but once at cruise it was not particularly louder than a jet, and only a little more bumpy due to being a smaller lighter aircraft. Likewise due to being smaller the interior was a bit more cramped but even the 747 I flew on was cramped, they pack people into planes like sardines in a can. The turboprop is roughly 25% more fuel efficient than a comparable jet, and the Q400 at least is nearly as fast. I'd like to see turboprops make a comeback on larger planes, I'd be happy to fly on one. I've liked airplanes all my life though and love to fly despite the modern hassles.Piston engines are even more fuel efficient than turboprops but avgas is significantly more expensive than jet fuel and the big radials are really maintenance intensive. Massive beasts with thousands of moving parts and the intricacy and precision of a sewing machine. The most powerful production piston aircraft engines ever made topped out at around 3500 horsepower while the PW150 turboprop on the Q400 develops over 5000 SHP and that's a smallish plane by current standards. It's just not practical to make piston aircraft engines for planes the size of modern jetliners even if maintenance wasn't an issue.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 03, 2018, 01:25:04 am
content: I have heard that another reason turbines took over in aviation is that their performance falls off more slowly with altitude, allowing operation at high altitudes where drag is much lower. This lower fuel consumption at altitude more than pays for the fuel to climb on longer flight segments. Don't know if this is actually true, but it at least passes a first order laugh test.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 03, 2018, 01:28:27 am
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on January 03, 2018, 01:25:04 amThat and more is in the link I posted earlier

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 03, 2018, 01:30:15 am
content: That is true, although turbo and supercharged piston engines are certainly capable of producing good power at high altitude, WWII bombers could operate at the sort of altitudes modern airliners fly.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 03, 2018, 01:38:41 am
content: Quote from: james_s on January 03, 2018, 01:13:44 amIt seems that the cruising speed of the Q400-8 is about two thirds of regular airliners. That's not a negligible difference.I don't think there are many modern craft built with radial engines any more. Those used commercially are typically found in older, overhauled aircraft.Most piston engines found in smaller aircraft will be boxer engines or other configurations more similar to those found in cars. As the aircraft is expected to cruise longer and fly higher, normally aspirated engines start having trouble, so you will need some sort of turbo or compressor on the engine. Obviously, picking an engine technology which inherently compresses air like a turboprop or jet engine starts becoming more attractive in those cases.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 03, 2018, 01:46:33 am
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on January 03, 2018, 01:25:04 amIf you drove a pre-computer-managed-engine car up a mountain, you might remember the engine behaved very differently after climbing just a few hundred metres. The control systems in modern cars disguise this, so its much less obvious. To get a piston engined plane up to even modest altitudes requires supercharging to get enough oxygen into the engine. Although its hard to supercharge them enough to get up to the kinds of altitude a modern plane operates at, things like the B29 could operate at nearly 10km. The typical cruising height for modern jets is not much more than this.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 03, 2018, 01:50:02 am
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on January 03, 2018, 01:38:41 amThe maintenance intervals and service life of a turbine are huge compared to a piston engine. A piston engine in a plane lasts a lot better than a car engine, because it runs for long periods at a steady speed and load. It still wears fast compared to a turbine, though.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 03, 2018, 01:59:10 am
content: The reason I used radials as an example is that almost all of the airliner sized piston engines were radials. The big liquid cooled engines like the Merlin and Allison V1710 "only" developed about 1200-1500HP, while the pinnacle of the radial era like the R3350 and R4360 were developing well over 3000HP. The air cooled radial design simply scaled more successfully into these larger sizes with the R4360 being one of the largest ever produced, stretching the limits of physics and metallurgy. Modern "large" piston aircraft engines like the O-540 flat 6 are an order of magnitude less powerful, there's nothing in recent production suitable for airliner size aircraft, that market has been completely taken over by turboprop for reasons I've already mentioned. It's just not practical to build a piston aircraft engine of more than about 3500HP, a power level easily achieved by turbines.I'm not arguing that piston engines make sense for airliners these days, turbines have numerous obvious advantages. My only point there was that fuel economy is not one of those advantages. Turbines have lousy fuel efficiency, and in the small sizes as would be used in cars it gets significantly worse, and that's really what the whole discussion is about. The only time a turbine less than about 500 SHP makes sense is when power to weight ratio and dependability is more important than fuel economy and that's not the case in a car.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 03, 2018, 02:05:35 am
content: Quote from: coppice on January 03, 2018, 01:50:02 amOn the other hand, an aircraft engine will typically cruise at around 80% throttle while a car probably cruises on the highway down near 10%-20% throttle. I suspect that all else being equal, the aircraft engine will wear out faster than a car engine but I don't feel like trying to calculate the number of engine hours to miles.Typically with cars made in the last 30-40 years the body, interior and gadgets fall apart long before the engine is in need of an overhaul though. If you keep oil in it and do the basic maintenance even a cheap car will go 300,000 miles. Turbine reliability would not do much for car longevity, and when you figure even a ground use turbine is going to cost more than most whole cars there's even less incentive to use one.