tegwin
|
| posted on 6/9/07 at 07:27 PM |
|
|
Hypothetical question....Turbine powered seven...
Lets just say, hypothetically I laid my hands on a small helicopter engine and a suitable autobox that would handle the power....
If I built it into a kit car, taking close attention to the heat and noise issue, could the car be SVAD and legaly driven on the road? :p
It would make a nice hypothetical car...or failing that, a hypotetical jetboat...
[Edited on 6/9/07 by tegwin]
|
|
|
|
|
oadamo
|
| posted on 6/9/07 at 07:31 PM |
|
|
i was bidding on one on ebay for one a long time ago i was gonna fit it in a car then take it to the strip lol. there was one with all the starter
gear wired up and ready to run.
adam
|
|
|
stuart_g
|
| posted on 6/9/07 at 07:33 PM |
|
|
Dax have already done it, don't know if it's road legal though, you may have a bit of a problem with the noise test and burning the paint
off cars behind you 
|
|
|
indykid
|
| posted on 6/9/07 at 07:33 PM |
|
|
aren't dax making one? would be a pretty lifeless beast i'd imagine.....interesting showpiece though.
tom
EDIT:doh! like stuart said ^^
[Edited on 6/9/07 by indykid]
|
|
|
blakep82
|
| posted on 6/9/07 at 07:45 PM |
|
|
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wQM_TyyRye4
not sure the flames would be appreciated at traffic lights
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-R2EmW-00d4
[Edited on 6/9/07 by blakep82]
________________________
IVA manual link http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?type=RESOURCES&itemId=1081997083
don't write OT on a new thread title, you're creating the topic, everything you write is very much ON topic!
|
|
|
balidey
|
| posted on 6/9/07 at 07:46 PM |
|
|
There was the Rover BRM. It could be run old engine oil. Not strictly 'road legal' but it did used to be driven on the roads around
Bourne.
|
|
|
DIY Si
|
| posted on 6/9/07 at 07:53 PM |
|
|
Dax cheated. They SVA'd the car with a "normal" engine, then stripped and rebuilt it the turbine. Not sure about the legality of it,
since it was a bare chassis rebuild with all new parts, but there you go! Otherwise, it'd never get through the noise test without serious work,
and emissions could be a tad tricky too!
“Let your plans be dark and as impenetratable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.”
Sun Tzu, The Art of War
My new blog: http://spritecave.blogspot.co.uk/
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 6/9/07 at 07:55 PM |
|
|
This one
http://www.madabout-kitcars.com/23/1564/1564picgallery.htm
http://www.madabout-kitcars.com/23/2019/2019picgallery.htm
http://www.madabout-kitcars.com/23/2020/2020picgallery.htm
Can't see any reason why SVA would be impossible with some thought - emissions might be complicated by they fuel (or can they use pump
petrol/diesel?)
Allegedly there is a motorbike that can do 0-200mph in 6 seconds using the engine, though some people have some doubts 
http://www.pushby.com/queue/technology/001305.html
--
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Anonymous
|
|
|
Simon
|
| posted on 6/9/07 at 08:19 PM |
|
|
The Rover T4 (P6 derivative) had the turbine exhausts running under the car, so silencing would be relatively easy.
Emissions, well turbines are far more efficient than reciprocating engines, the exhaust gas is in the flow of the flame all the time.
Noisiest part is intake, but that could be taken care of.
I think it's a great idea. Wouldn't need an autobox (or any box for that matter). Just connect to prop via a clutch and away you go
Have a look for Nye Thermodynamics and in particular, their boats (see vids)
ATB
Simon
|
|
|
adithorp
|
| posted on 6/9/07 at 08:27 PM |
|
|
These are from Stoneleigh this year.
http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z282/adrianthorp/stoneliegh1.jpg
http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z282/adrianthorp/stoneleigh3.jpg
adrian
|
|
|
BenB
|
| posted on 6/9/07 at 10:23 PM |
|
|
A turbine car would suck like.... can't think of an analogy but Amsterdam and Red lights come to mind...
Turbines are infamous for their spool up / spool down times....
It'd be like driving a car with the world's worst turbo lag. You'ld floor it and twenty seconds later you'ld be developing
full power. Come up to a corner, back off the power and it'd be 10 seconds before you'ld be back to idle.... Hooning it round corners with
the clutch down is generally a bad idea....
On a helicopter (where constant RPM is a good idea) or a fighter jet (where ultimate power and speed is a good thing) a turbine rules....
Compare the dog fights of the early turbine planes with the fighter prop-driven planes. Pretty close battle (the prop driver could out-turn and
out-manoever the turbines even though the later had more speed and more power). Air-air missiles changed everything!!!
On a drag strip a turbine car would be great. But then why build an aerodynamically challenged car with great road-handling? For a drag strip you want
a slippery mofo with optional ability to steer. For an everyday back-street blaster a turbine engine would suck..... Think turbo on steroids...
|
|
|
caber
|
| posted on 6/9/07 at 11:02 PM |
|
|
just needs some lateral thinking.
1 torque converter, keep turbine spooled up all the time use torque converter to deliver rev variation
2 turbo electric. again keep turbo at constant revs driving a generator use those nice motors on the car mentioned on another thread.
in the 60s there was a Lotus turbo indy car as well as the Rover BRM sports racer they must have figured it out!
Caber
|
|
|
akumabito
|
| posted on 7/9/07 at 08:05 AM |
|
|
Turbine cars are nothing new.. in 1963 Chrysler tested a turbine-powered family car.
From Wikipedia:
quote:
The fourth-generation Chrysler turbine engine, which ran at up to 45,700 rpm, would run on diesel fuel, unleaded gasoline, kerosene, JP-4 jet
fuel, even vegetable oil. No adjustments were needed to switch from one to another. Its power turbine was connected, without a torque converter,
through a gear reduction unit to an otherwise ordinary TorqueFlite automatic transmission. (The fluid coupling between the combustion gases and the
power turbine provided exactly the same functionality as a torque converter but without using a conventional liquid medium.) Twin rotating heat
exchangers, called regenerators, transferred exhaust heat to the inlet air, greatly improving fuel consumption. Varying stator blades prevented
excessive top end speeds, and provided engine braking on deceleration. Throttle lag, poor low-end torque and high fuel consumption and exhaust gas
temperatures at idle plagued early models; Chrysler was able to remedy or mitigate most of these drawbacks and deficiencies. Furthermore, the car
sounded like a vacuum cleaner, which was not satisfying to consumers who were more comfortable with the pleasant rumble of a large American
V8.
|
|
|
02GF74
|
| posted on 7/9/07 at 08:42 AM |
|
|
1963?? Pah!!
Rover were doing it in the late 40's.
|
|
|
Hammerhead
|
| posted on 7/9/07 at 09:36 AM |
|
|
new stateside rent-a-car!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-R2EmW-00d4&NR=1
|
|
|
