[HN Gopher] Ron Patrick's Street-Legal Jet Powered Volkswagen Be...
___________________________________________________________________
Ron Patrick's Street-Legal Jet Powered Volkswagen Beetle (2006)
Author : 1317
Score : 240 points
Date : 2023-10-05 13:45 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.ronpatrickstuff.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.ronpatrickstuff.com)
| ynoxinul wrote:
| Apparently the post is from 2006. I wonder if this contraption is
| still street-legal.
| K0balt wrote:
| It would be legal to run it on the factory engine, at which
| point the jet is just cargo. If you start the jet on a public
| road, it could be considered a public nuisance, reckless
| driving, etc.
|
| If a the vehicle presents a clear and present danger of any
| kind it is a-priory a ticketable offence at least. With the jet
| off, it poses no such danger.
| moate wrote:
| You can own a car, you can own a flamethrower, you can't fire
| your flamethrower out of your car while driving on public
| roads.
| psychlops wrote:
| I'm certain an officer could find all sorts of reasons to
| ticket that vehicle if inspired.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| And for California, don't forget "Exhibition of speed" which
| is a rather nasty ticket to end up with.
| gpderetta wrote:
| what I really want to know if he ever finished his scooter!
| zoomablemind wrote:
| Fun read!
|
| I would rather not follow a car like that on the road, hell, even
| driving by it.
|
| The looks don't signal the intent. Guess what will it do next
| when either light starts blinking, or both? There is no known
| signal for kicking on the jet engine! From the back it looks like
| a gigantic cannon too, BeachBuggyRacing kind.
|
| Just for kicks, I'd also put a "Student Driver" decal on the rear
| window :).
| visarga wrote:
| [flagged]
| avg_dev wrote:
| nice... does anyone remember a K Car with a supercar engine? that
| was not quite as crazy as this one, no jet engine, but it was
| nice. i can't seem to find it but i remember reading about this
| "sleeper car".
| [deleted]
| brucethemoose2 wrote:
| Crazy engine swaps are not uncommon. There are some Fiat 500s
| and such with v8 double motorcycle engines, wankels or even
| v12s and racecar v6s:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A52W20Z38Bw
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6SZuionhqQ
|
| A turbine _is_ relatively exotic, if only because they are even
| more impractical.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| IIRC someone put a turbocharged 7L smallblock V8 in the back
| of a Lotus Exige, though they had to lengthen the chassis to
| make it fit.
| brucethemoose2 wrote:
| That is probably the Henessy Venom GT.
|
| My favorite is the Ariel Atom V8, which swapped the Honda
| Civic engine for a hilarious 483hp 3L NA V8. In a 1300lb
| car.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| The Venom GT was indeed what I was thinking of. 1451hp in
| a 2800lb car.
| whynotmaybe wrote:
| Even a snowblower with a HEMI...
|
| https://www.ign.com/articles/2005/06/22/that-thing-got-a-
| hem...
| ed_mercer wrote:
| > The Beetle was chosen because it looks cool with the jet and it
| shows it off well.
|
| Subjective, but I would argue that the Beetle is a terrible
| choice and makes the jet engine look like a pole sticking out of
| a ball. A flat sports car would probably fit the look much better
| and mimic the aerodynamics of an aircraft.
| brk wrote:
| This is a hacker classic. Would be curious to know what
| eventually became of it.
| JoblessWonder wrote:
| Can someone ELI20 how one would convert a turboshaft engine to a
| turbojet engine?
| mr_toad wrote:
| Basically you just remove the shaft.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| And put a nozzle on the exhaust.
| JoblessWonder wrote:
| Ah, that makes sense. Thank you!
| rmason wrote:
| How did Jay Leno not get this car on his TV show when he had it?
| He still is posting episodes to YouTube so it is still possible.
| mywacaday wrote:
| Jay has his own jet bike,
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDhoYXw2IPc
| latchkey wrote:
| _Discussions on similar submissions:_
|
| _Jet Powered Volkswagen Beetle_
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28349589 (August 29, 2021 --
| 2 points, 1 comments)
|
| _Ron Patrick 's Street-Legal Jet Powered Volkswagen Beetle
| (2006)_ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16513835 (March 4,
| 2018 -- 156 points, 60 comments)
|
| _Street-Legal Jet Powered Volkswagen Beetle_
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5384390 (March 15, 2013 -- 6
| points, 2 comments)
|
| _Street Legal Jet Powered Beetle (2006)_
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=831185 (September 18, 2009
| -- 76 points, 23 comments)
| overlyambitious wrote:
| and still no videos online.... fishy
| dang wrote:
| Thanks! Here's a great subthread from one of those:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16524533
|
| (I just added it to https://news.ycombinator.com/highlights)
| latchkey wrote:
| @dang I wonder why we don't just generate these things at the
| bottom of every article? My extension does it already, but I
| feel like it would help a lot as a core feature.
| hansoolo wrote:
| Wouldn't help me unfortunately, as I am reading HN on an
| android app. But good idea.
| dang wrote:
| The lists that I post, and that most users post, are
| reviewed to include only the interesting threads. This
| makes them more valuable to readers, since the odds of
| going on a click trip to something boring are much lower.
|
| Rather than autogenerating them, I think what we'll do is
| add software support for the community to collaborate on
| the 'related 'list for a post. And it needn't just link to
| related HN threads - it can be related URLs on the same
| story, for example.
|
| When we'll actually get to this is another question of
| course...
| latchkey wrote:
| Good points. Previously [0], in your list, it doesn't
| include the number of points, as well as the calendar
| day, which is something that my generator includes and
| helps prevent click trips.
|
| To filter further, the list could just include posts with
| some points + comments ratio math. Also filter out
| similar posts within a short timeframe, if two posts
| happen within a week of each other, pick the one with the
| better ratio math.
|
| No need to involve the community in moderation a second
| time, since they've already involved themselves with
| points/comments to begin with.
|
| [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37768936
| xrd wrote:
| This should be retitled "Now I'm going to finish adding jet
| engines to my wife's scooter."
| mindslight wrote:
| The scooter seems like it could be a poor idea due to
| asymmetric thrust, and I have to wonder if he just mocked it up
| in jest. It does look pretty awesome though.
| whatshisface wrote:
| You could adjust the two throttles to trim it, preferably not
| while in motion.
| [deleted]
| joshu wrote:
| i know ron!
| dazhbog wrote:
| Tell him to make a YouTube channel or update us on that scooter
| ;)
| grecy wrote:
| I'm a little shocked there's no 1/4 mile time.
|
| Surely when you strap a jet engine to a Beetle you need to find
| out how fast it goes!
| dotancohen wrote:
| Quick, not fast. Low 1/4 times are mostly associated with
| acceleration, not speed.
| omginternets wrote:
| How on earth is it street legal to emit a high-pressure plume of
| jet exhaust behind you?
| nikanj wrote:
| 'Murica
| dzdt wrote:
| Its street legal to drive using the standard motor with the jet
| engine OFF.
| aidos wrote:
| > That doesn't stop me from the occasional blast on the
| highway though.
| skeaker wrote:
| Something being road-illegal doesn't stop you from doing it
| anyways...
| omginternets wrote:
| Oooh, it's a hybrid!
| dylan604 wrote:
| "Hmmm, the car has two engines making the car a hybrid so
| maybe we can drive in the commuter lanes along with the
| Toyota Priuses. "
| omginternets wrote:
| Imagine being the cop who has to argue over the ticket
| with that guy ^^
| [deleted]
| ceejayoz wrote:
| "I'm... gonna park a little further back."
| [deleted]
| dylan604 wrote:
| There's a paragraph and photo of this very thing in the
| TFA
| mindslight wrote:
| We live in a society where things are legal by default. Why
| would adding a jet engine to a car be a priori illegal? If he
| harms somebody or otherwise causes damage, that itself is
| what's illegal and he'd be liable regardless of motor vehicle
| regulations. If this mod became a larger trend, especially
| consumer-available, then regulations would be implemented to
| head it off. But for a few lone instances it's not particularly
| necessary.
| shortcake27 wrote:
| 20 years ago in Australia my car got canaried because I had
| LPG and a pod filter, which was illegal because you were only
| allowed 1 modification to the intake system. I am 100%
| confident that if I strapped a jet to the car, it would be
| illegal. As it should be. If you want to do extremely
| dangerous modifications, do it on your own property. Not a
| public road where you risk killing a family of 5.
| mindslight wrote:
| You're speaking from an Australian perspective about _what
| is_ , to make an otherwise unsupported argument about what
| _should be_ in the US. I 'll be one of the first to point
| out problems and blindspots from the American conception of
| "freedom", but in this case it seems highly appropriate.
| You yourself even got bit by overregulation for something
| seemingly reasonable and forward-looking, and yet you're
| still reflexively defending it!
|
| In my estimation your example "family of 5" is at much more
| risk from widespread unnecessarily-high bro-dozer trucks
| than a single engineer personally adding a jet engine to
| his car while seemingly being very in touch with the
| dangers of operating it. In fact given the severe disparity
| in other vehicle crash survivability statistics between
| coupes and trucks, I've got to wonder if this car isn't
| still _individually safer_ than a casually-driven pickup
| truck.
| gafferongames wrote:
| As an Australian-American living in the US I can confirm
| that the Australian concept of law (aka Nanny State)
| would ensure that this modification is illegal by
| default. Think of the children.
| civilitty wrote:
| Children don't really fit in the intake so it shouldn't
| be a problem
| jamiek88 wrote:
| I was shocked as a Brit American living in the US how
| nanny state Aust is. Even more than Britain. Certainly
| when it comes to cars and driving. The whole 'anti hoon'
| thing seems shocking to me with my now mostly American
| sensibilities.
|
| But I guess that's why we both live here rather than
| blighty or down under.
| defrost wrote:
| Australia's just fine with adding jet engines to cars and
| designing|building one million round per minute guns.
|
| It's the mixing up of such things with the general
| unconsenting public that raises an eyebrow.
|
| Hoon's can hoon - just out of earshot of people that want
| a quiet life and off the community car parks and roadways
| - there's no shortage of private land and designated drag
| strips | raceways.
|
| https://aussieinvader.com/the-people/rosco-mcglashan-oam/
|
| https://thewest.com.au/lifestyle/motoring/wa-
| built-1600kmh-j...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_Storm
| shortcake27 wrote:
| It's important to understand most things happen for a
| reason, and as a Brit American living in the US you might
| be missing some context.
|
| In the area I grew up, it was expected that your first
| car would be a V8. Hooning was ingrained into the
| culture. Back then it was a single spinner, no ABS, no
| airbags, basically no safety features at all. So what
| would happen is someone would get their licence, grab as
| many mates as they could, drive as fast as they could,
| and wrap their car around a tree killing everyone. Every
| week there was a news story about a multiple fatality P
| plate accident caused by hooning.
|
| A culture of dangerous driving and dangerous vehicles led
| to Australia's anti-hoon laws. It's not just "ooh silly
| nanny state laws for no reason".
| shortcake27 wrote:
| > a single engineer personally adding a jet engine to his
| car while seemingly being very in touch with the dangers
| of operating it
|
| What if a non-engineer who doesn't understand the dangers
| makes this type of modification? This is is why it needs
| to be illegal. Just because someone straps a jet engine
| to their car it doesn't mean they know what they're
| doing, and _that_ is the risk, and why pretty much all
| laws exist in the first place. Many people could drive
| safely without speed limits, but we have speed limits to
| cater for people who can't. My point is that if this type
| of modification truly is legal in America, that's scary,
| and Australia got the laws right. A jet-powered car is
| not inherently safer in the US than Australia.
| gehwartzen wrote:
| > What if a non-engineer who doesn't understand the
| dangers makes this type of modification?
|
| This hasn't happened afaik in the last 15 years. I assume
| any non-engineer who doesn't know the dangers also
| doesn't have the technical know how to build this. Also
| the cost is several hundred thousand $.
|
| History seems to indicate it's a non-issue.
| userbinator wrote:
| It is likely to be safer simply because the one driving
| it is going to be a lot more careful than the average
| driver.
|
| I recall seeing a study a while ago that showed how those
| who work on their own cars, especially for those who do
| major jobs like engine rebuilds, are statistically far
| less likely to get into an accident. Unfortunately I
| can't find it now.
| historyTeach123 wrote:
| He didn't modify the car's original factory system. He
| simply added onto it, he added a second independent system.
|
| Tbh I kinda agree this is a bit ridiculous to assume it's
| safe to drive on the road though.
| cortesoft wrote:
| In California, you have to register your car and have it pass
| a smog test. How would this pass that?
| mhb wrote:
| Aren't "inspections" nowadays done only by plugging into
| the OBD port? So, no problem?
| btilly wrote:
| Just drive on the gasoline engine.
| lmm wrote:
| Doesn't the smog test require you to run your car at the
| peak power it can do, or something like that?
| btilly wrote:
| Floor the accelerator, yes.
|
| Find a toggle for an unrelated afterburner? Not so much.
| jamiek88 wrote:
| I'd hate to be the minimum wage tech tying to figure that
| out!
| lawlessone wrote:
| I am not in the US, but where i am afaik anything that
| modifies the car like this would have to go through some sort
| of recertification process.
|
| It would be perfectly legal on private property but not
| public roads
| dahart wrote:
| I'd guess that's true in the US too, _if_ you modify the
| engine or transmission or exhaust system, etc. But adding
| something to your car without modifying the existing
| systems has no regulation and no certification process,
| which he sorta talks about in the article re: police
| inability to enforce. As long as there aren't other laws
| you violate, hanging a big fan out the window might not
| count as modifying the car.
| throwaway20304 wrote:
| Well not sure where you are, but where in EU I am, you can
| modify the insides of your car (people attach entire
| apartments to the insides of their cars...), and there's
| nothing wrong about stuff sticking outside - you just need
| to attach a red flag if it's over 1.5m out of the car
| (maybe red flame would be enough?).
|
| The modified rear door might be a problem, but where I am
| you could simply keep the original open, or detach it.
| jamiek88 wrote:
| Road traffic laws are absolutely not harmonized across
| the EU.
|
| French, Portuguese and German rules of the road for
| example are all different in statutory strictness and
| enforcement strictness.
| olyjohn wrote:
| In this case the law has already been written. It's not a
| CARB-approved, nor EPA compliant engine. You're not allowed
| to run it on the street. The law is written so that
| everything you do to a car's emission system is illegal by
| default. To make any engine modifications in California, the
| part must be CARB approved and have a compliance sticker on
| it. Engine swaps in California are legal, as long as the
| engine being swapped is at least as new as the engine in the
| vehicle and meets the same regulatory requirements. Which
| means you swap in another EPA/CARB approved engine, but not a
| jet engine.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| Jet exhaust doesn't need to be high pressure. It depends. For
| example a turboprop engine doesn't provide any jet thrust and
| usually the exhaust is even pointed away from the direction of
| flight.
|
| But it is very hot so exhausting it close to the ground or
| people is a serious problem.
| Miserlou57 wrote:
| My buddy (a car guy) from Mountain View told me he could hear
| this thing on 280 late at night every now and then. Anyone else?
| Aurornis wrote:
| Awesome project, but are there any actual videos of it running
| the jet engine?
|
| He says the jet engine moves 11,000 CFM of air, but that air can
| only come through the windows and the sunroof. Pulling 183 cubic
| feet of air per second through those little openings while
| sitting in the drivers seat isn't going to work. Just try to do
| the math on how fast that air would have to be moving through
| those windows.
|
| Cool show piece though.
| samtho wrote:
| This not a typical low-bypass, cigar-type turbofan jet engine
| you see on airplanes, rather, it's a modified turboshaft jet
| engine used for helicopters, intended to provide longitudinal
| rotational energy. The air it moves from the intake is a
| fraction of what it produces as the combustion process itself
| results in gasses being chemically formed. There is no
| propeller or fan on this engine - it's closer to a rocket than
| what we think of as a jet.
| lmm wrote:
| > it's a modified turboshaft jet engine used for helicopters,
| intended to provide longitudinal rotational energy. The air
| it moves from the intake is a fraction of what it produces as
| the combustion process itself results in gasses being
| chemically formed.
|
| It's not a turbofan no but it's a jet engine burning fuel the
| regular way (using air), like the ones on a B-52 or Concorde.
| Very different from a rocket engine that carries its own
| oxidiser.
| samtho wrote:
| I'm fully aware of the difference. The only parallel I've
| drawn is the fact that it uses gases as a result of the
| combustion as propulsion rather than spinning a fan.
| Whether it has its own oxidizer is irrelevant for the
| purposes of this analogy as I don't see this vehicle
| achieving any sort of space flight.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Yes, there's video online.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCqxWhKe_tA
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zNdkXwFQ3c
|
| (Noise warning, for obvious reasons.)
| avg_dev wrote:
| I see
|
| > I don't know how fast the car will go and probably never
| will. The car was built to thrill me, not kill me. That
| doesn't stop me from the occasional blast on the highway
| though.
|
| but I am unsure if that means he has never driven it using
| the jet engine, or whether the engine even will power the car
| or just kinda runs on its own. I'm curious to see it go at
| all under jet engine power.
|
| Edit: maybe this is it
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-ipYAl3o40
| jefftk wrote:
| That videos's an original Beetle, not a New Beetle.
| dmurray wrote:
| I think he means he's used it plenty, but hasn't tried to
| max out the speed.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| That's my reading as well.
|
| I have a vague memory of this site or an interview
| previously saying he got up to 130 mph once, before
| deciding he'd rather not find out what speed a VW Beetle
| lifts off the pavement.
| sokoloff wrote:
| Give 6 sq ft for openings, that's around 30 linear feet per
| second. ~30 feet per second is ~20 miles per hour. That's a
| stiff breeze, but it doesn't seem outrageous.
| [deleted]
| ralfd wrote:
| Comments from 2018:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16513835
| [deleted]
| smohnot wrote:
| He had it listed on Craigslist a few years ago... for $550k.
| Anyone know the current status of it?
|
| https://www.autoevolution.com/news/get-yourself-the-iconic-j...
| stergios wrote:
| It's still sitting in his shop. RP is not going to sell it.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| I think it's more that like most modded / custom car owners,
| he thinks that it's reasonable to set an asking price
| according to the following formula:
|
| (Cost of car) + (Cost of Mods) + (My time x some magical
| hourly rate) = reasonable asking price
|
| The more sane of them add in a multiplier, like say .5 to .8.
| Or leave out their time.
|
| Reality is:
|
| What 1 person among the people who hear about the sale will
| pay = reasonable asking price
| jamiek88 wrote:
| Yeah things like that are always the same.
|
| It's the sellers dream, rarely anyone else has the exact
| same dream.
|
| If they have a similar dream all they see is the
| differences and what they'd do differently.
| historyTeach123 wrote:
| [flagged]
| hrichards wrote:
| Seems like a good time to ask this question that has been bugging
| me forever, since all the HN jet nerds will be drawn to this
| thread:
|
| Why hasn't anyone made a hybrid car that uses a gasoline-powered
| turbine generator to charge its batteries instead of a piston
| engine?
|
| I'd imagine that hooking up such an engine directly to the
| drivetrain like in a Prius would be difficult, but surely a small
| turbine with one hell of a muffler running a generator (similar
| to a natural gas power plant), both running only at their peak
| efficiency RPMs, would yield a very efficient car that could
| still use the extant gasoline infrastructure.
|
| I'm sure there are very interesting reasons, either due cost,
| noise, reliability, or durability, that this idea hasn't taken
| off, and I'm very interested to hear y'all's thoughts on the
| subject. Or maybe there has been progress in this area, and I'd
| love to see some links!
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| Sounds like you just described a hybrid, only needs a larger
| tank.
| usrusr wrote:
| I've been wondering about this very same question a lot myself
| and accidentally stumbled across the answer just a few days
| ago: Efficiency of turbines smaller than grid scale is simply
| not anywhere close to what piston engines can do at e.g. car
| size. Even at naval scale, turbines only win in use cases where
| power density is more important than fuel efficiency.
| Helicopters are deep in the (specific) camp of power density
| beats efficiency because carrying a heavier but more efficient
| engine would easily eat the fuel savings. Fixed wing aircraft
| gain range by climbing high, but up there both efficiency and
| power density of piston engines decreases dramatically with
| decreasing air density, so they are also in the camp of power
| density over efficiency (turbines are also affected, but not
| quite as much).
|
| Note that despite all this, the Otto Aviation 500L that is all
| about fuel efficiency at high altitudes uses a piston engine
| (they probably put a lot of effort into their turbocharger,
| those can lessen the impact of thin air)
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| The bit about the naval use and efficiency isn't quite
| accurate.
|
| The issue isn't that they're not efficient. It's that they
| are only efficient at high power level, and the minimum power
| level they're efficient at (and even their minimum power
| level, period) - is quite high. To compare: Britain's current
| aircraft carrier has four diesels that total 40MW...combined
| those diesels equal one of its two 40MW turbines.
|
| This minimum power level is why jet airplanes have an APU,
| and often taxi with just one engine running, with the second
| started up with enough time to get up to operating
| temperature for takeoff.
|
| Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_MT30
|
| ~40MW, minimum efficient power level 25MW.
|
| 25MW, even if it's very efficient in terms of turning
| kerosene into shaft power, means the ship is moving really
| fast, and thus there's enormous fuel consumption and drag.
| taneq wrote:
| Then wouldn't they just have a 5MW turbine and run it at
| its peak efficiency?
| usrusr wrote:
| I don't think that it's just inefficiency at certain power
| levels:
|
| The big table on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake-
| specific_fuel_consumptio... has the Marine Trent rated less
| efficient than some car engines. And that table is peak
| efficiency, not efficiency at some arbitrary inconvenient
| power level.
|
| But you are right in so far as efficiency at the low end of
| the power range is very important in commercial shipping.
| Because the energy demand (at the drive shaft) of a given
| trip is highly dependent on the desired speed and if going
| show ruins your engine's efficiency any dip in demand will
| ruin you economically (because others on the market are
| much better at compensating the dip by "slow steaming")
| jabl wrote:
| Another reason many navies like turbines is that big diesels
| produce a lot of low frequency noise which travels very far
| underwater, so submarines can hear you coming from a very
| long distance.
|
| Although many navies do operate combinations of diesels and
| gas turbines (CODAG etc.), in such cases the diesels need to
| be installed on special shock absorbing mountings, in some
| cases even with a diesel-electric drive to avoid coupling the
| vibrations of the engine to the hull via the propeller shaft.
| anjel wrote:
| Celebrity and Cunard built a few Cruise ships that use
| turbines to generate power to its electric motor
| propulsion.[1] They regret the endeavor owing to cost of
| operation.[2]
|
| [1]https://www.ge.com/gas-power/industries/cruise-lines
|
| [2]https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1202425
| Lanrei wrote:
| You'd be better off with an engine specifically designed to be
| efficient. Turbines are great at many things, but they are
| complex and don't scale down very well. They were primarily
| used where high torque and power is required, and they just
| aren't practical outside of that.
|
| A better option would be a constant speed ICE engine running at
| it's peak efficiency (like a diesel-electric train).
| xattt wrote:
| I don't have the source at hand, but a gas turbine is
| ridiculously inefficient for variable loads. At idle, fuel
| consumption can be ~35% of what it is at full power.
|
| It would only need to charge for short time, and subsequently
| shut off. When a charge top-up is required, startup would be
| another rigamarole.
|
| Now, rotary engines, that's a different story...
| playworker wrote:
| https://www.mazda.co.uk/cars/mazda-mx-30-r-ev/
| symmetricsaurus wrote:
| Volvo did this back in 1992 but only as a concept vehicle
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo_ECC
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > Why hasn't anyone made a hybrid car that uses a gasoline-
| powered turbine generator to charge its batteries instead of a
| piston engine?
|
| Because turbine engines have some pretty serious downsides.
| Compared to a piston engine, they guzzle fuel [1], they're
| pretty complex to repair (which is one of the problems Ukraine
| is facing), they spin at absurd RPMs which means that they need
| some serious housing to not turn into a shrapnel dispenser in
| case of an engine failure or accident, and they produce an
| awful lot of hot exhaust gas at high velocity that needs to be
| dissipated somewhere - down isn't OK because it will melt the
| asphalt, sideways is not OK because it will melt or injure
| anyone and anything next to the car, and upwards carries
| serious risks as well (e.g. if you're in a tunnel).
|
| [1] https://www.augsburger-allgemeine.de/politik/panzer-
| vergleic...
| salty_biscuits wrote:
| But they have
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar_C-X75
|
| Turbines get more efficient as they get bigger.
| Animats wrote:
| It's been done a few times, as listed here.
|
| One not mentioned was someone in Southern California who got an
| old aircraft APU (probably a Solar T-62[1] or similar) and made
| an electric hybrid back in the 1980s. The APU charged the
| battery, and shut down when the battery was full. Worked OK,
| apparently.
|
| The trouble with turbine engines is that, below bizjet size,
| they don't seem to get any cheaper. Not for lack of trying in
| the 1990s. NASA, Williams International, and Eclipse tried
| hard. There were a few prototype planes, but no commercial
| success. There are today what are called "very light jets", but
| this means 4-6 people and and a price around $2 million.
|
| General aviation is still mostly piston-powered. There are tiny
| jet engines for R/C planes, but they have very short operating
| lives.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_T62
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > The trouble with turbine engines is that, below bizjet
| size, they don't seem to get any cheaper.
|
| That's because of the lack of demand. GA is _extremely_
| conservative, most designs date back to the 50s-70s and the
| more modifications you make to a design the more extensive
| and expensive certification becomes. They 're still flying
| with leaded fuel, many decades past the removal of lead in
| car fuel, because up until last year there hadn't been a
| certified alternative (and the one that is is not suspected
| to be readily available until 2027+).
|
| For a jet engine powertrain on a plane the size of a Cessna,
| you'd need to redesign the whole frame, you'd need to design
| appropriately sized engines and maintenance procedures, and
| you'd need to re-train all the pilots. Before that happens,
| GA will go electric.
| historyTeach123 wrote:
| [flagged]
| jabl wrote:
| As mentioned in a sibling comment, turbines don't scale down
| very well. Boundary layer friction gets relatively worse for
| smaller turbines, and AFAIU small turbines have relatively
| larger inefficiency due to air leaking past between the blades
| and the casing, etc.
|
| There's a couple of companies working on recuperated turbine
| engines for small aircraft in the few hundred kW range, remains
| to be seen whether any of these will succeed.
| iancmceachern wrote:
| The military has made several "micro turbine generators" Here
| is a report on one:
|
| https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA515623
|
| My guess the answer to your question would be cost.
| h2odragon wrote:
| i think even the tiny, model jet engines used in radio control
| planes are both very hot, and move lots of air. both of which
| are hard to tame to the point of making them comfortable to
| coexist with on a city street in large herds.
|
| I still want one. direct the exhaust forward, dump in a little
| extra fuel, and instant snowblower / flamethrower. Makes that
| pesky crosswalk crowd just melt away.
| jacquesm wrote:
| And turns it into a skating rink five minutes later. You want
| the snow to go away, not to change into liquid water on a
| sub-zero stone substrate.
| h2odragon wrote:
| Excellent point, but i must rebut: (a) i'm already on my
| way by then, and (b) FIRE! </beavis>
| rainbowzootsuit wrote:
| It's a(t least one) thing. Test run before the snow gets too
| deep:
|
| Jet Powered Blower
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcEkt5vQTVQ
| clucas wrote:
| Having an ICE that drives a generator (alternator?) to power a
| traction motor(s), without being mechanically linked to the
| drivetrain, is how diesel locomotives operate. I believe the
| concept also has been (is being?) explored for linehaul trucks.
| But I'm not sure what constraints there are on passenger
| vehicles though... I'm also curious.
|
| If I had to guess, I would bet that the constraints are more
| commercial than physical... hybrids are already very efficient,
| so the market for such a vehicle would probably not justify the
| engineering costs. But that's just a guess!
| linkjuice4all wrote:
| Union Pacific tried using turbines in the 50s[0] but fuel
| consumption was an issue (I think they had to keep the
| turbine idling and maybe throttling wasn't as easy?). Also
| mentioned in the wiki article was the low-grade fuel they
| were used was able to be used for plastic manufacturing
| instead of just burning it.
|
| The bigger difference between locomotive applications and GPs
| question is around charging batteries as opposed to running
| motors or directly turning the wheels. Efficiency of the
| smaller turbine is mentioned in another comment - but I have
| to imagine you'd also see some loses going from turbine to
| generator to battery and then to electric motor.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Pacific_GTELs
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| Diesels idle pretty efficiently whereas jet turbines have
| very high minimum amounts of power.
|
| In terms of efficiency losses between the turbine,
| generator, battery, and motor - no, not really; look at
| most modern hybrid cars.
|
| Lithium ion battery coulombic efficiency is in the high
| 90's percentage-wise, by the way.
|
| I would imagine that we might see hybrid turbine
| locomotives as battery power density and cost continue to
| improve.
| teeray wrote:
| The MBTA uses jet engines as giant hairdryers to melt snow
| off the Mattapan High Speed Line [0]. I'm not sure if it's
| also serving as the prime mover, but even if not it's still
| an interesting and unusual application.
|
| [0] https://youtu.be/DL6jKOCeVec
| jgable wrote:
| Wrightspeed did this a while (10 years?) ago. It looks like
| they have since pivoted to fully electric powertrains for
| buses, but when they first started they were doing range-
| extending hybrid powertrains for heavy trucks. I found an
| article the describes the system at the time:
| https://www.e-hike.net/tr/content/wrightspeed-unveils-new-
| turbine-range-extender-medium-and-heavy-duty-electric-
| powertrains-30
|
| With a range-extender hybrid system, you can keep the turbine
| closer to its peak-efficiency operating point, since it only
| has to handle steady-state load while the battery takes up the
| spikes. Not sure how it would do up a long grade, but I imagine
| they designed for that.
| p1mrx wrote:
| Video of a Wrightspeed truck:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIAosHyqARA
| thebutcher wrote:
| I think someone is making this, or maybe I misunderstood your
| question. The Ariel Hipercar uses a jet engine to power it's 4
| electric engines. I think it's just used as a range extender,
| and last I saw they didn't have it working yet. It's been a
| while since I checked up on the car.
|
| EDIT: I just read this article from 2023 that says the turbine
| engine still isn't working:
| https://www.evo.co.uk/ariel/206120/ariel-hipercar-prototype-...
| TuesdayNights wrote:
| Arnold Schwarzenegger's Hummer from the early 2000's is setup
| like this -- 100mpg with bio-diesel. I think this is the
| original article I read about his car's creator, Johnathan
| Goodwin, from years ago.
|
| https://www.autoblog.com/amp/2007/10/20/biodiesel-turbine-su...
| zdragnar wrote:
| Per the article, he claimed the Hummer would get 60, the 100
| number was aspirational based on ideas he had for future
| designs.
|
| (Still pretty awesome. If it didn't likely cost more than
| what truck is worth I'd want it too)
| RachelF wrote:
| I worked for a company that did this in the 1990's. Small gas
| turbine, the size of two show boxes (200hp) powering a
| generator, which charged the batteries and/or electric motors.
|
| The advantages are efficiency, low weight and no gearbox is
| needed, as the turbine spun at over 100,000 rpm and the
| generator was fine with that.
|
| The main disadvantages were noise and turbines need more
| maintenance than piston engines. No LiIon batteries back then
| either.
|
| The project only built 1 finished prototype.
| Scene_Cast2 wrote:
| To add to the discussion - the M1 Abrams tank uses a turbine. I
| don't know how that's linked up to the tracks though.
| ithkuil wrote:
| Interestingly, that engine has good power to weight ratio,
| has a better noise profile (higher pitched noise, that
| doesn't transmit far, albeit louder locally), can operate
| with a variety of fuels, and can handle arctic conditions.
|
| The downside is that it consumes 50% more fuel than a
| comparable diesel engine.
| mr_toad wrote:
| The turboshaft is linked to reduction gearing. I'm not sure
| how it's linked to the sprocket that drives the tracks but
| it's probably a chain, like on a motorcycle.
| efitz wrote:
| Former M1 Abrams crewman (19K). It has an automatic
| transmission.
| shagie wrote:
| I recently stumbled into a couple of YouTube videos on turret
| design for tanks.
|
| * What actually IS an "Oscillating" turret?
| https://youtu.be/46k7uhPHpLY
|
| * What happened to Rear-Mounted Turrets?
| https://youtu.be/g5DOf2eZW3Y
|
| At 4:24 in the rear mounted turret video it touches on the
| aspects of modern transmission.
| usrusr wrote:
| "The car has two engines: the production gasoline engine in the
| front driving the front wheels and the jet engine in the back."
|
| Careful wording to give the impression that the drive shaft of
| the helicopter turbine would be connected to the rear wheels,
| without actually claiming that it is. So it's a car with a large
| flame thrower in the back, minor The Boring Company vibes.
|
| Well possible that the author might have had more fun writing
| than building/driving. (I do love the incredulous tone of "#1
| Does this mean I'm the right hands?")
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| It produces thrust in the normal way a jet engine aircraft
| does... with high exhaust velocity. From the videos you can see
| shock diamonds, so it is producing supersonic exhaust.
| alright2565 wrote:
| I don't think so. In another part he mentions
|
| > This is a helicopter turboshaft engine that was converted to
| a jet engine
|
| I can't see a way to get rotary power out of this engine after
| the modifications.
| usrusr wrote:
| Any turboshaft engine is a jet engine if you don't connect
| anything to the shaft and point the exhaust in the right
| direction. Just not a very good one, at zero bypass.
|
| If you think there is anything done in this project to
| increase performance you are missing the point of the joke:
| woah, jet engine! Woah, rated 1350 horse power! Heh, retro
| novelty compact with a truly glorious amount of hot air.
|
| Will the turbine exhaust noticeable push the car? Sure. Even
| a piston engine exhaust does, e.g. some versions of the
| Merlin engine claim extra 70 HP from exhaust thrust.
|
| Is the author having great fun (and readers who get it) by
| brandishing the rated rotary power of the turbine over and
| over again, while carefully avoiding any mention of actual
| performance of the car? Absolutely. But it's not mean
| deception, it's friendly trolling. Which is basically the
| essence of the entire hot rod idea. I dislike the waste (of a
| good car, and the occasional kerosene burn, the turbine was
| probably beyond airworthyness certification and thus scrap
| anyway), but I find his "friendly trolling" charming in a
| surprisingly deep way.
| ben7799 wrote:
| For a stunt car like this there's not a huge need or desire to
| have it powering the wheels at all.
|
| The direct air thrust will push the car just fine, doesn't need
| a transmission, has zero issues with wheel spin or traction,
| and so then doesn't require re-engineering the wheels/tires and
| then the suspension and/or chassis to handle 1350hp.
| jamiek88 wrote:
| Yeah imagine the rubber! They'd need American drag racing
| tyres!
| generalizations wrote:
| > You have to give the California Department of Motor Vehicles
| (the DMV) credit for creativity on this one. A DMV insider has
| disclosed to me that the DMV has made a formal request to a
| federal agency to rule if my Beetle constitutes a threat to
| national security based on what could happen if it got into the
| wrong hands. This raises three questions in my mind: #1 Does this
| mean I'm the right hands? #2 If someone with the name "b_laden13"
| is the highest eBay bidder for my Beetle can I refuse his offer
| even if he has the prestigious eBay Red Shooting Star feedback
| rating (the highest)? #3 Would this affect my eBay rating?
|
| Wonder if they ever found a way to give the guy a ticket.
| literarylover wrote:
| [dead]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-10-06 23:02 UTC)