Adapting any jet engine to propeller drive

Discussion in 'Boat Design' started by RatliffFranklin, Jan 22, 2008.

  1. jehardiman
    Joined: Aug 2004
    Posts: 2,822
    Likes: 375, Points: 83, Legacy Rep: 2040
    Location: Port Orchard, Washington, USA

    jehardiman Senior Member

    There is some pretty good evidence that DB bought Chrysler just to loot it of advanced engineering like Kinetic energy drives and fuel cell hybrids:

    http://www.allpar.com/model/patriot.html

    It actually got to the project car stage then they looked at what would happen in an accident. I do not want to be anywhere near a 80k rpm flywheel when it comes apart...
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2008
  2. FAST FRED
    Joined: Oct 2002
    Posts: 4,519
    Likes: 109, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 1009
    Location: Conn in summers , Ortona FL in winter , with big d

    FAST FRED Senior Member

    I do not want to be anywhere near a 80k rpm flywheel when it comes apart...

    EXACTLY the reason the "fuel crisis" is not answered by cars with flywheels.

    Either induction thru the vacum housing or a shaft from below could spin the unit back to full speed in under a min.

    Compare recharging a bat set , or resupplying high pressure air , and its far easier to meter and do for the std driver.

    BUT in a crash that energy of 10 or 15 gal of fuel will be in the flywheel (about 300 miles of energy) and will somehow need to be controlled.

    If NOT,

    The Liars for Hire would have a field day!

    FF
     
  3. RatliffFranklin

    RatliffFranklin Previous Member

    Flywheels

    The design of the F1 KERS is nothing remotely like the Patriot system. For example, at 1,147 lbs the Patriot flywheel system was 23 times heavier.
     
  4. jehardiman
    Joined: Aug 2004
    Posts: 2,822
    Likes: 375, Points: 83, Legacy Rep: 2040
    Location: Port Orchard, Washington, USA

    jehardiman Senior Member

    I never said it was a copy, just pointed out that the idea and technology wasn't new and that there were demo vehicles, and my statement still stands. I've seen what happens when a 25 lb normal flywheel failed at 8,000 rpm. A failure in one twice as heavy (and with a larger radius of gyration) at 80,000 rpm would not be nice, even if it is in a shatter blanket.
     
  5. RatliffFranklin

    RatliffFranklin Previous Member

    The A S S in ASSUME

    THE ENTIRE F1 KERS UNIT weighs under 50 lbs.

    AND it's going to be used in front of thousands of people on cars hitting upwards of 200 mph.
     
  6. jehardiman
    Joined: Aug 2004
    Posts: 2,822
    Likes: 375, Points: 83, Legacy Rep: 2040
    Location: Port Orchard, Washington, USA

    jehardiman Senior Member

    Ok, then how heavy is the flywheel? if it is 6" in dia, the weight required is 89 lbs, if 9" in diameter, 39.8 lbs, if 12" in diameter, 22.4 lbs.

    My money says it is closer to 40lbs than to 20lbs.
     
  7. RatliffFranklin

    RatliffFranklin Previous Member

    F1

    My money says you have no clue how anal F1 designers are about weight.
     
  8. jehardiman
    Joined: Aug 2004
    Posts: 2,822
    Likes: 375, Points: 83, Legacy Rep: 2040
    Location: Port Orchard, Washington, USA

    jehardiman Senior Member

    They have already accepted a 35kg increase in minimum weight of the car. Read the proposal.

    Edit: actually the KERS unit itself only adds 15kg to the minimum weight of the car when you include existing engine/transmission weight reductions to be implemented. Total weight of the car remains the same by fuel reduction.
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2008
  9. jehardiman
    Joined: Aug 2004
    Posts: 2,822
    Likes: 375, Points: 83, Legacy Rep: 2040
    Location: Port Orchard, Washington, USA

    jehardiman Senior Member

    I never said people were smart. If fact, I expect that 50 % of the people I interact with will be of below average intelligence. You do not, and will not, find me sitting in motorsport racing grandstands.
     
  10. FranklinRatliff

    FranklinRatliff Previous Member

    Dumbasses

    GOOD. The fewer pseudointellectual self-important elitists sitting in the grandstands the easier it'll be for everyone else to have fun.
     
  11. jehardiman
    Joined: Aug 2004
    Posts: 2,822
    Likes: 375, Points: 83, Legacy Rep: 2040
    Location: Port Orchard, Washington, USA

    jehardiman Senior Member

    I do not know why my comments have rankled you so. I take it is the fact that the article I posted shows that F1 was not leading engineering advancement. To tell the truth, professional racing has not lead technological advancement since the early 1970's and the demise of the more developmental classes. The road to ruin started with banning the obviously superior developments. From an engineering prespective, all road racing cars should have developed onward from the Chaparral 2J and the 1967 Studebaker STP Special.

    The over hyped motorsports like F1 and NASCAR are now, because of the rule restrictions, a glorified bloodsport akin to pro wrestling. They are events...not races. Like the America's Cup, they have become a circus, a show for the masses, not having any real bearing on the advancement or development of the art.

    If you want to see an open field competition that combines unlimited speed controled only by the skill of the driver, I suggest you take up watching luge or skeleton.
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2008
  12. FranklinRatliff

    FranklinRatliff Previous Member

    F1

    F1 teams have been doing composites prototype and design work for aerospace companies because F1 competition requires much faster design cycles than what is typical in aerospace.
     
  13. jehardiman
    Joined: Aug 2004
    Posts: 2,822
    Likes: 375, Points: 83, Legacy Rep: 2040
    Location: Port Orchard, Washington, USA

    jehardiman Senior Member

    All the work I have seen that they are involved in is refinement, not advancement. The ability to cut weight and safety factors to use less materials and save weight is of extreme economic concern to aerospace, but it is nothing more than refining an already defined process and material use. From the aerospace industries perspective, it is cheaper and faster to get real world testing in F1 that might be applicable to airframes than by doing it themselves. They already have a process and layup that works, if the racing groups work out a better one that holds up...they will take that, if it fails then it provides insight into they way forward.

    Tub concept, monocoquce structure, materials, ground effects, computer controls, etc. all the stuff of a modern F1 car came from other applications. And in reality that is forced now beacuse of the spending limits rules. Gone are the days of unlimited R&D money. The only group now that has generally unlimited money for R&D is the tire supplier, and thats because everyone has to use the same tires.
     
  14. FranklinRatliff

    FranklinRatliff Previous Member

    ******

    If operating at the rapid development tempo of an F1 team such as McLaren were easy aerospace companies wouldn't be going to them in the first place. F1 teams have to find ways of cutting weight while MAINTAINING required driver safety.
     

  15. jehardiman
    Joined: Aug 2004
    Posts: 2,822
    Likes: 375, Points: 83, Legacy Rep: 2040
    Location: Port Orchard, Washington, USA

    jehardiman Senior Member

    Not ease, cost. I can do a lot more different things on 25 $1M chassis than on 1 $25M airframe.
     
Loading...
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.