Hi Folks
As concerns best transmission for turbine power in vehicle application I think it’s the electric : high transmission efficiency , widely variable torque / speed range while primary engine runs at suitably tuned rpm .
On the Paris Salon 2010 Jaguar presented a super sports car CX75 with a small gas turbine to load batteries and comparatively very powerful electric traction motors . The idea is to have the gas turbine running at relatively constant output and rpm – where it’s most economic – and use batteries as energy storage for powerful electric motors . Drawback of course is : you can only use this superior motor power for a very limited time before the batteries – having to be the lightest possible of necessarily limited capacity – are being drained .
I felt tempted to compare this car’s energy character with a predator crocodile’s behavior : the croco can be uncannily rapid and agile for a short time , surprising an antelope and catching it . However , if it doesn’t make it , it has to let go and retreat to a restful posture for some time before it can make another assault or else it would overcharge it’s circulation . Same with this super sport hybrid : if it races for a Cavallo Rampante ( Ferrari ) and can’t quite make it – overtake it , that is – then pretty soon it has to ease off and retreat to a very sedate gait or rest , preferably , to reload batteries – *g* .
I see , progress is indeed limited in this car …
Regards
Juniatha
Links to topgear article on Jag CX75 at Paris Salon 2010 …
http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/paris-motor-show-2010-jaguar-cx75-supercar
Jag CX75 gas turbine electric hybrid super sports car
… and my comments on it
http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/paris-motor-show-2010-jaguar-cx75-supercar?&pager.offset=25#commentsListBottom
page 6 with my first comment
http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/paris-motor-show-2010-jaguar-cx75-supercar?&pager.offset=30#commentsListBottom
page 7 with more comments
http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/paris-motor-show-2010-jaguar-cx75-supercar?&pager.offset=40#commentsListBottom
page 9 with answer by ‘sporty 883’ to me
http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/paris-motor-show-2010-jaguar-cx75-supercar?&pager.offset=50#commentsListBottom
page 11 with my answer to ‘sporty 883’ and part 1 – 3 of 4 of my comments
http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/paris-motor-show-2010-jaguar-cx75-supercar?&pager.offset=65#commentsListBottom
page 14 with comments part 3 and 4 at last (I had lots of posting issue with IE8 in this thread)
http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/paris-motor-show-2010-jaguar-cx75-supercar?&pager.offset=70#commentsListBottom
page 15 with answer to ‘darrian’
http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/paris-motor-show-2010-jaguar-cx75-supercar?&pager.offset=75#commentsListBottom
page 16 with comments part 1 – 4 combined
For ease and better reading
(without hyphens and the like turned into faulty question marks)
I copied my comments from topgear :
Juniatha commented on this article
at 07:29 pm on 30 September 2010 (page 6 of comments)
Well, the idea of using a gas turbine for car propulsion is not new at all. Chrysler tested turbine powered cars back in the early 1960s. They even came as far as building a number of cars, I believe 50 of them, to hand out to special customers for road testing. In the end the idea did not enter production status for lack of customer interest. The concept then did not include electric motors - impossible for power/mass ratio then, still heavy chunks today’s after all those marked improvements - but an automatic transmission adapted to the higher revving levels of the turbine. One problem was the high temperature exhaust gasses, but that had been solved in the end. The cars, based on a Dodge intermediate were appreciated for their smooth quietness. Because of light weight acceleration was good and offered great scope for development. =J=
at 07:37 pm on 30 September 2010 (page 7 of comments)
@ samwise: Uuh, there is more to it, I'm afraid, much more! You are right as far as mechanical efficiency is concerned. It is a much more complex affair with thermodynamic efficiency at various load and rpm parameters. And it becomes just a trifle bit more complex yet with the jet as we consider "other" - i e cheaper, lower grades of fuel. Conditions ruling in aircraft engine design cannot be directly transmitted to road vehicles. I make an emergency stop here or else I would keep writing with no end in sight. =J=
at 08:00 pm on 30 September 2010 (page 7 of comments)
(Part 1) -- Ok, the trick here is: They use powerful electric motors capable of high short time efforts, install high capacity batteries as energy reservoirs and use the smallest possible gas turbine reloading set to constantly run at optimum efficiency point to constantly recharge batteries. Theoretically, this cycle should go endless - or in fact as far as a fill of gas will support - 560 miles in this case. It would appear perfectly possible though to considerably shorten the range by heavy foot driving, emptying the batteries flat out - which should be no problem with electric motors that powerful. Then you'd have to sit and wait until the micro turbo recharging unit has built up a minimum of voltage - *g* (cont part 2)
(Part 2) -- So - no car for the race track. Its performance is rather like your average crocodile: from standstill it can make a few gigantic leaps forward and be stunningly fast on a short stint. But if that doesn’t get it to bite - erh sorry: beat - it's Porsche (or other) prey, then it has to let go and retreat to a restful position - *ggg* =J=
at 07:15 am on 02 October 2010 (page 9 of comments)
@ sporty883 (Part 1) - You are sure right in that turbines can be thermodynamically optimized for a certain working range. Unfortunately though, that range near best efficiency is rather smaller that that of piston type combustion engines, namely diesel engines. With aircraft this is much less critical because after a short time of maximum output at starting, engines run at near constant output for most of the journey. Turbines *basically* aren’t’ all that complex, mechanically - the challenge is in heat loads, centrifugal forces fan contouring and other factors which combine to very high demands in material qualities - thus send production costs soaring. Other than in road vehicles, aircraft use direct thrust rather than torque - this greatly simplifies design, helps to minimize rotating mass and ideally suits the nature of this concept of engines. (cont. part 2)
(Part 2) -- The main reason jet engines were such a success in aviation is simply in their power to mass ratio. Go to any air show where they fly classic airplanes with radial piston engines and you will see that they take off like your typical goose: near horizontally - and that is with fire from the exhaust at full throttle! It's a long way to from having 4 x 3300 hp by 4 Wright 18 cylinder radial engines at your hand in a Super Connie - to name what may be considered the best and final type of piston engines planes - and, initially, 4 x 13.000 pounds (57.85 kN) of thrust by 4 Pratt & Whitney JT3 turbojets as in the early Boeing 707. The JT3 was the civil version of the J57, which was the first jet engine that had a dual-rotor axial-flow compressor which was the key to lowering fuel consumption over a wider operating range. The power unit later on got considerably beefed up to deliver up to 18000 pounds (80.1 kN) for starting power. (cont. part 3)
(Part3) -- Yet, even the power of the first version was an astonishing step forward over piston engines. Demonstrating the new jet liner to airline executives gathered at the annual convention of the international air transport association, then held at Seattle, test pilot Tex Johnston thoroughly knowing the B-707 prototype flew a roll to show what the new aircraft can do. He remembers: „Monday morning, I was called to Mr. Allen’s office (William M. Allen, then president of the Boeing Airplane Co). Mr. Allen asked me what I thought I was doing. I said: I was selling airplanes.“ Johnston explained it as a 1g maneuver, absolutely non hazardous, but very impressive. „His (Allen’) comment was: You know that, now, we know that, but just don’t do it anymore!“ *g* =J=
at 02:13 pm on 10 October 2010 (page 11 of comments)
@ darrian -- Chrysler was seriously investigating turbine car production. They built several prototypes based on series cars. They solved the inherent technical challenges involved with a gas turbine for car propulsion and finally built a small series of turbine cars with a special body type of their own. These cars were given to selected customers for road testing over a lengthy period of time. (cont part 2)
(Part 2) -- In the end it all came to nothing - be that due to lack of car buyers interest, be that because the rate of series production deemed interesting by management was not realistic. In retrospect, it would seem that Chrysler management has not often been up to the technical competence of that company as displayed in the 1950s - 60s - 70s. Management, it would appear, did not realize what special position the company could have attained by those technical advances achieved by their engineers. Instead, they opted for the conventional - in which Chrysler was just third place behind Ford and GM car mass producers. That meant Chrysler could never win a unique market position of their own. =J=
at 02:16 pm on 10 October 2010 (page 14 of comments)
@ WolfiePeters (part 1) -- Well, as I said: they’re using a small gas turbine running at optimum output all the time. In any concept of engine you always have to define a working range for optimum efficiency, a gas turbine is specifically sensitive in this respect. Its best efficiency does not necessarily have to be at maximum output, usually isn’t. Preferably chosen output range is in the upper level, say 3/4 - 7/8 of full output while at maximum effort fuel efficiency tends to drop. This is acceptable for a short time maximum effort. You ask what sort of driving can produce an average rate of energy consumption of 200 hp, especially with energy recovery from braking? Well, let’s just mention three points: -- (cont part 2)
(part 2) -- Well, let’s just mention three points: -- (1) - Take a look at some TG tests of an AMG Mercedes 560 or other super sports car being swung around on that airfield when the car gets shrouded in tyre smoke and before long the whole vicinity vanishes in smoke as if a tyre warehouse is burning down (guess they use gas masks and oxygen supply for driving). (2) - Energy recovery from braking - sounds nice, but it’s a long way from ‚recovering’ all the kinetic energy built up by acceleration - don’t forget acceleration and deceleration processes are both realized at less than 100 percent efficiency. -- (cont part 3)
(part 3) -- (3) - With a car, wind and rolling resistance per mass unit are relatively high at speed as compared for instance to that of a train or, in fact, an aircraft. So, over covered distance, there is a substantial fraction of energy spent without any chance of recovery. Further, the most interesting driving with powerful cars is in the mountains. So, you have to add another post: energy spent in climbing. Look at the video of ‚World’s best driving road’ Davos to Stelvio, for example, a great piece of road, I can fully agree with the enthusiasm of the topgear boys! Driving up that road in a positively sportive attitude - braking, accelerating / braking, accelerating and so on, it won’t help batteries running down low that there would be a down hill section ahead after just a couple more miles up. -- (cont part 4)
(part 4) -- Just combine (1), (2) and (3) and you can produce a substantial consumption of energy per min, per mile as you please. There is no way around it: it’s the primary engine’s output, by factor of overall efficiency, that defines what energy per min or per mile you can spend on average. If that engine’s output is small, so is you average budget for your road show. I you want to go 560 miles: no squealing smoking tires, no whiplash get anyways, no short bursts of high speed runs, cut by braking at adhesion limit - just plain boring sensible smooth driving at average speeds as any 50 hp car would do ? and would do so at the same or better fuel efficiency! Asides from a certain show effect, where is real progress in that car?!? Show me, please. =J=
All the commentary of high automotive performance, can it be applied to steel meets steel at the flanged wheel? Develop railroad drag racing as a spectator sport and technical test bed.
Lay straight standard gauge tracks side by side and let the competition begin. Who will be first to reach the quarter mile finish line? The vehicle need not be a behemoth locomotive, but the roughly the size of what currently races on rubber.
Any form of propulsion would be permissible. Internal combustion, electric, turbine, steam, military aircraft jet, if you can tie it down and strap yourself in, take off. There could be special classes of speedsters as with super fueled funny cars.
A fiberglass shell over the machinery mimicking a standard locomotive would make the tie to the everyday. Think of it along the lines of racing street rods. For that matter, race smaller versions of such classics as a New York Central Hudson locomotive. It would be a marketing draw for screamer radio ads.
SUNDAY.. SUNDAY...SUNDAY.
See Daring Danny Dreyfuss in his Howlin' Hudson challenge Racin' Ramond's Piston Poppin' Pennsy Perfecto. The steam and sparks will fly.
When the Union Signal style "christmas tree" goes green, there shall be wheel slip. Crowds love the sight and smell of tortured rubber on bleached pavement. Let the sparks fly as steel on sanded steel seeks adhesion.
If the sport takes off, there could be practical spinoffs as from racing to family sedan. Who knows what shade tree mechanics may come up with.
Morning J:
With {obviously}, so much auto data at your fingertips, you might throw out your thoughts on so many different auto models making the move to 4 cyl. engines, and many of them turbocharged....and still, some of them with two turbos.
Seemingly, to take the place of so many V-6 engines we've been using now for some time. And even V-8's in some cases.
I would think to get the performance from the smaller 4 cyl. turbo engine, and when one uses that potential, the fuel consumption might be as much as the larger V-6 anyway.....
Might we take from that, the companies are going to the 4 cyl. set up to actually get the official fuel consumption rating to meet some new regulations on the way in a couple of years.....?
Meaning, keep one's foot out of the throttle, and be able to get the higher mpg rating, but still have the performance available to use....
I have a friend who drives an HHR Chevy SS turbo, with the 2.0L engine, and it will pull pretty hard when asked to.
Just some thoughts....
Quentin
Hi Folks Some aspects can be translated into railroad use , some not , for instance RR train load is incomparably larger per 1 hp that in cars , even in trucks . That is why RR engines have to be extremely sturdy and must endure prolonged high load running , yet must be more flexible than marine engines at the same time – locomotion is a tough job ! Gee – never thought of bringing drag racing to rails . I think I would rather propose 4 miles instead of quarter mile because of much slower acceleration . If in a drag competition of locomotives you would accept overhead wire electrics – there everyone else goes quitting , because the electric’s power output per construction mass of vehicle is unparalleled by any heat engine . Actually , present day synchronous electrics , light engine running could almost compete with automobiles in the upper speed range , say above some 80 – 90 mph . An acceleration competition between such electrics where electronic slip control has been taken off , with complete trains (incl passengers !) , could be interesting : winning largely depends on a sensible hand at the power wheel ! What might be interesting could be a kind of tractor pulling with diesel locomotives – either on a stiffening incline ( see how far you can go ) or in direct transcription with a tow car having one side on a sleigh with a moving load being brought forward to the sleigh side at a fixed ratio per yard towed . My own ideas on automobile design are not much concerned with present day efficiency hype . It’s all about down-sizing now , although a smaller engine is harder pressed on average , there is an advantage left because of lower inner friction and higher average mean cylinder pressure and generally hotter running – all combined yield higher mechanical and thermal efficiency . Curiously , you may be reassured with downsizing American cars still keep double number of cylinders over European cars since in Europe downsizing already has turned design to turbo charged two cylinder engines for small cars . It’s all but a craving to cling to known ways as the great gates of history are slowly closing in on oil-fuel based economy . The term used for the CX75 in that TG article – ‘tree hugging’ – of course is a gross embellishment : if the car is environmentally less polluting it is still far from protecting nature – or maybe I have misunderstood the term in this context when it actually it’s supposed to warn a trip with this car might thoughtlessly culminate in a spontaneous ‘tree hugging’ posture involving some hefty re-sculpturing of sheet metal – which might tend to be less than forwarding in view of continuing the trip . Regards Juniatha More great engine sounds of big gas guzzlers with lots of CID : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dExlu488bM4&feature=related Super Connie blue hour take-off on Air Show , Avalon , Australia No , these are no lights at the engine pods – mind , flames from exhaust are white flames ! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3PlWvoJyxw&feature=endscreen&NR=1 Super Connie night take-off , Avalon Air Show , Victoria , Australia 2003 Speaker (oh , shut up please) : “.. we will just listen to the sound of it , first of all …” (a-l-right !) First Movement : The sound of four demons howling , played by supercharged Wright R-3350 18 cyl radial engines at full throttle during take-off http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyUJIC6I7ic&feature=related Get more sound without turbo chargers : old goony bird low fly-bys – alive and kicking in South America http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=FLMmdx7y5-4 …and yeeeeooowaaaahh more sound with four engines ! beautiful Red Bull DC-6 engine start and take-off I think we’re all a bit nuts : gee , the noise of hot combustion gases blazing from engine exhaust is music to us ! And why not : when engineering and craftsmanship have neatly combined to achieve a piece of (tech) art it is (tech) music after all – dunno what you say , I think if the growling of these radial engines don’t give you a shiver down your spine , you should be concerned about your mental livelyness *g*:
Some aspects can be translated into railroad use , some not , for instance RR train load is incomparably larger per 1 hp that in cars , even in trucks . That is why RR engines have to be extremely sturdy and must endure prolonged high load running , yet must be more flexible than marine engines at the same time – locomotion is a tough job !
Gee – never thought of bringing drag racing to rails . I think I would rather propose 4 miles instead of quarter mile because of much slower acceleration . If in a drag competition of locomotives you would accept overhead wire electrics – there everyone else goes quitting , because the electric’s power output per construction mass of vehicle is unparalleled by any heat engine . Actually , present day synchronous electrics , light engine running could almost compete with automobiles in the upper speed range , say above some 80 – 90 mph . An acceleration competition between such electrics where electronic slip control has been taken off , with complete trains (incl passengers !) , could be interesting : winning largely depends on a sensible hand at the power wheel ! What might be interesting could be a kind of tractor pulling with diesel locomotives – either on a stiffening incline ( see how far you can go ) or in direct transcription with a tow car having one side on a sleigh with a moving load being brought forward to the sleigh side at a fixed ratio per yard towed .
My own ideas on automobile design are not much concerned with present day efficiency hype . It’s all about down-sizing now , although a smaller engine is harder pressed on average , there is an advantage left because of lower inner friction and higher average mean cylinder pressure and generally hotter running – all combined yield higher mechanical and thermal efficiency .
Curiously , you may be reassured with downsizing American cars still keep double number of cylinders over European cars since in Europe downsizing already has turned design to turbo charged two cylinder engines for small cars . It’s all but a craving to cling to known ways as the great gates of history are slowly closing in on oil-fuel based economy .
The term used for the CX75 in that TG article – ‘tree hugging’ – of course is a gross embellishment : if the car is environmentally less polluting it is still far from protecting nature – or maybe I have misunderstood the term in this context when it actually it’s supposed to warn a trip with this car might thoughtlessly culminate in a spontaneous ‘tree hugging’ posture involving some hefty re-sculpturing of sheet metal – which might tend to be less than forwarding in view of continuing the trip .
More great engine sounds of big gas guzzlers with lots of CID :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dExlu488bM4&feature=related
Super Connie blue hour take-off on Air Show , Avalon , Australia
No , these are no lights at the engine pods – mind , flames from exhaust are white flames !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3PlWvoJyxw&feature=endscreen&NR=1
Super Connie night take-off , Avalon Air Show , Victoria , Australia 2003
Speaker (oh , shut up please) : “.. we will just listen to the sound of it , first of all …” (a-l-right !)
First Movement :
The sound of four demons howling ,
played by supercharged Wright R-3350 18 cyl radial engines at full throttle during take-off
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyUJIC6I7ic&feature=related
Get more sound without turbo chargers : old goony bird low fly-bys – alive and kicking in South America
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=FLMmdx7y5-4
…and yeeeeooowaaaahh more sound with four engines ! beautiful Red Bull DC-6 engine start and take-off
I think we’re all a bit nuts : gee , the noise of hot combustion gases blazing from engine exhaust is music to us !
And why not : when engineering and craftsmanship have neatly combined to achieve a piece of (tech) art it is (tech) music after all – dunno what you say , I think if the growling of these radial engines don’t give you a shiver down your spine , you should be concerned about your mental livelyness *g*:
Checked out the videos....Enjoyed.
Believe the Convair 880 was the first commercial Jet I ever flew in....TWA, Chicago to Vegas. {1969}.
Loved the sound of the Connie's taking off...was beautiful.
And who doesn't love the DC-3.
The last 3 Connstellation airplanes that I saw were setting at the Kingman, Az. airport back in 1969. Some parts had been "robbed" from at least one of them. Do not know if any were flyable....It looked like one might have been, but don't know if it was.
Juniatha As concerns best transmission for turbine power in vehicle application I think it’s the electric : high transmission efficiency , widely variable torque / speed range while primary engine runs at suitably tuned rpm . On the Paris Salon 2010 Jaguar presented a super sports car CX75 with a small gas turbine to load batteries and comparatively very powerful electric traction motors . The idea is to have the gas turbine running at relatively constant output and rpm – where it’s most economic – and use batteries as energy storage for powerful electric motors . Drawback of course is : you can only use this superior motor power for a very limited time before the batteries – having to be the lightest possible of necessarily limited capacity – are being drained .
Juniatha,
In your description of a turbine-battery-electric car, you mention that the drawback would be that it would quickly run out of power because of the battery storage limit. But wouldn’t the turbine engine produce enough power to sustain the battery charge? My impression is that the battery is just to smooth out the peaks and valleys of power demand while driving, and thus allow the turbine to run at a constant speed and load in maintaining the battery charge.
Considering this basic hybrid concept of engine-generator-battery-electric motor, with the inherent advantage of the motor running at a constant, optimal power output: What would be the advantage of a gas turbine over a gasoline or diesel piston engine as the prime mover?
I have heard a generalized statement that diesel engines inherently are capable of being made more efficient almost indefinitely, although at higher a cost of manufacturing. And I also understand that this diesel potential is being explored in Europe, whereas in the U.S., there is relatively little interest in developing the potential of diesels. Assuming that is true, why is that?
I have heard two different explanations. One is that U.S. emissions laws preclude this exploitation of the diesel. The other is that the U.S. consumer market rejects diesels because they perceive them to be noisy, clunky, smoky, and old fashioned. If the latter is the reason, I am surprised that that perception cannot be overcome.
Oh Lord have mercy, I loved the video of that DC-3 making those high-speed passes! Greatest aircraft of the 20th Century! Think I'm nuts? Listen for excellence of design, ability to handle any task thrown at it, and especially its longevity and ability to still earn its keep nothing can touch it. As long as parts are available there'll be a DC-3 flying somewhere, and may it always be so. Thank you Juniatha for that great video!
Firelock76:
I'm no expert on DC-3's but I agree with everything you said....
Lake Central Airlines used to fly them into Muncie here....and to Chicago. Rode on them quite a few times. Also from Marion to Detroit.
And did the same on a military version from Korea to Japan and back.
Always felt confident in them, even though they made all kinds of noise and fire flying out the exhausts {visible}, at night....
No Question....One of the best in many categories of all times.
Those of us "of a certain age" will remember the Union Pacific's series of "Big Blow" 4,500 HP and 8,500 HP GE Gas-Turbine Electric Locomotives, United Aircraft TurboTrain passenger train sets that ran for a few years in the 1970's - 1980's in Canada and from New York City to Boston, the Rohr TurboLiners passenger trainsets for Amtrak along the Hudson River that didn't run much at all, and maybe a few others (Budd's SPV2000 car ?). But we'll skip the NYC experimental twin J47 jet-powered RDC M-497 for now.
John Kneiling used to advocate small gas-turbine engine packages for his integral train designs, cycling individual units on-and-off to modulate the power output as needed. Also, to avoid running them at less than full load, when the fuel efficiency was poor (supposedly those kinds of turbines use fuel at about the same rate of gals. per hour, whether idling or running at full load . . . ). He would have had a direct-drive via reduction (and reversing ?) gears, with the axles connected by either side rods (!), chains (!!), or gears.
The 1960's Chrysler automotive turbines mentioned by Juniatha above may have found a similar application a few years later. The US Army's M1 Abrams series of Main Battle Tanks are powered by 1,500 HP gas turbines, which I believe were developed and manufacture started by "Chrysler Defense", and then continued by General Dynamics after it bought Chrysler's tank division (see letter from Brig. Gen. (Ret.) Steve Bliss about 2/3 of the way down this webpage: http://www.g2mil.com/abramsdiesel.htm ; see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams#Development ; http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2008/06/whatever-happened-to-the-gas-turbine-engine/ ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGT-1500 ).
In my wilder thoughts, I wonder how practical it would be to adapt a couple of those M1 turbine packages to drive a power truck, for say under the slope sheets of a coal hopper or covered hopper car, or as the equivalent of a lower-level container on a double-stack intermodal train, etc. . . .
- Paul North.
Hello, Modelcar! Continuing on the DC-3, when I was in the Marines in the '70s we were still using the last variant of the DC-3, the "Super DC-3", its military designation was the C-117 if I remember correctly. We used to call them "Hummers", since jets screamed but the Hummers being recip engine powered "hummed". Everybody just loved the Hummers, they were a throwback to the Marines glory days of the '40s, and the pilots who flew them loved them too, they didn't feel cheated that they weren't flying C-130s, or fast-movers for that matter. What finally caused the retirement of the Hummers was the decision to standardize Marine Air on JP-4/5 jet fuels and eliminate anything that used conventional aviation gasoline. Too bad. They were sorely missed.
Back on "topic," Eleanor Roosevelt died at the dawn of civilian jet transport. Eleanor flew in DC-3s. Did Eleanor ever fly in a Boeing 707? Did Eleanor have a favorite version of the DC-3?
The US emission regs for automobile diesels are different than the European regs. Otherwise, tried and tested diesels could come here pretty quick.
I think the other big stumbling block is the fact that around here, diesel is almost $1.00 a gallon more than regular unleaded. It would have to be a big jump in mileage to make that pay off, considering getting the diesel engine in the first place can be a $2-4000 (or more) option. Around here, the car would rot out from the road salt before you could make up the difference in purchase price through buying less fuel (at a higher price).
Mike WSOR engineer | HO scale since 1988 | Visit our club www.WCGandyDancers.com
the VW TDI Jetta a Diesek gets 15 more MPG than the Gas model trust me for that Differance in Mileage I would consider getting one.
On aircraft - one thing I love about airshows is when the vintage warbirds take to the air - especially the Mustangs. What a sound!
I've flown once on a DC-3. Unfortunately it wasn't a "flight to remember," unless you want to remember flying to basic training, packed in with a planeload of other airman recruits headed for the same place... Houston to San Antonio - tired, late at night...
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Victrola1 Back on "topic," Eleanor Roosevelt died at the dawn of civilian jet transport. Eleanor flew in DC-3s. Did Eleanor ever fly in a Boeing 707? Did Eleanor have a favorite version of the DC-3?
Eleanor Roosevelt died in Nov. 1962. Quite a few years before the 707.
I think Pan Am initiated transatlantic flights with Boeing 707's in 1958.
I have a 1960 copy of the OG that includes some airline timetables which show 707's and DC8's as the equipment on the longer domestic flights.
As far as auto-size diesels are concerned, they are turning up with more frequency in pick-up trucks and other light trucks plus some larger SUV's. Finding a diesel in a sedan is still not that common. I would think the older perception of diesels as noisy and smelly still hangs on.
creepycrank I think Pan Am initiated transatlantic flights with Boeing 707's in 1958.
Correction: I spoke in error. I stand corrected...Agree: About 1958.
A couple of comments about diesels in the US.
During the late 1970's GM produced several diesel engined vehicles. I think that GM used a block from a gasoline engine to save production costs. These engines did not last and many failed within 1 year.
Also during the same time frame Volkswagon produced diesel engines for the Rabbit. By way of contrast their are still quite a few gasoline engined Rabbits on the road from that time frame however I do not think I've seen any diesel rabbits in a long time.
In addition Mercedes did sell quite a few diesel autos. The Mercedes diesel autos I think afre the only survivors of the 3 lines that sold diesels.
Next truck diesels. I drive a truck for a living. My current truck is a 2008 with a series 60 Detroit Diesel. The 1st thing I noticed about it was the inside of the exhaust stack was clean ie no black soot. That became my guide to tell me if something was wrong with the pollution control systems. (engine warranty 5 years 550,000 miles).
The newer trucks in the US do not put out black clouds of smoke, unless something is wrong with it(or someone has bypassed).
Rgds IGN
Anonymous [snipped] Hi Paul How did they sound , these UP gas turbine electric units?
LOUD !!! (both at rest and at full power)
For more info on them, the only book I'm aware of is: Turbines Westward, by Thomas R. Lee - see: http://www.abebooks.com/9780916244019/Turbines-Westward-Lee-Thomas-R-0916244016/plp
Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Pacific_GTELs
EDIT: Link to a 1:29 promo clip for Pentrex's video "Union Pacific - Turbines of the Wasatch" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lhz5NzkMgsw But as noted in the comments, there's no sound of them in this clip, and I have no idea if there is in that video, either - see: http://www.pentrex.com/uptdvd.html
Also a link to a 0:32 video/ sound clip of an M1A1 starting up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=sXE4tMEYCoI
P.S. - I liked your cat story, too ! Our current housecat is a stray who just showed up about 16 months ago, but fortunately he wasn't in such bad shape as yours was. No doubt it was your faith, love, and care that got it through that difficult time ! - PDN.
One comment on the Comet disasters. One of the lessons Boeing learned from the Comet crashes was something needed to be designed in case of a structures failure to prevent the explosive decompression that doomed the Comets.
If I remember what I read many years ago Boeing redesigned the frame that in case of failure that the damage would be contained and the airframe could continue to fly(for a short period).
As evidence of this fix I would point to 3 "major" frame failures
1. In the late 1980's a 737 operated by Aloha Airlines suffered a structural failure. Approxiamately 20 feet of the passenger cabin literally peeled away. The aircraft had been used in interisland service within Hawaii its entire life. It had (compared ot other 737's) a huge number of cycles and was a little over 20 years old.
The flight crew actually managed to fly the aircraft another 20 minutes to an emergency landing.
2. Early 1990' a United 747-200 was enroute over the Pacific either Auckland to San Francisco or SFO-AKL when it suffered a failure in the baggage hold. This failure resulted in a 10 foot section of the lower deck being lost. In this case the flight crew flew the aircraft about 2 hours to a landing in Honolulu
3. 2 or 3 years back a Southwest flight lost cabin pressure and landed in Yuma,Az. On landing it was found a 3 foot section on the top of the frame had peeled back.
All 3 of these became what is known as survivable I think as a result of the investigation into the Comet 's.
Interesting discussion on the De Haviland Comet. I remember reading in Eddie Rickenbackers autobiography years ago that he and several other American airline executives were invited by De Haviland to fly in the Comet, obviously DeHaviland was looking for some American orders. Capt. Eddie remembered being very impressed with the aircrafts performance, even flew it himself for a while. While exiting the cockpit he looked down the length of the passenge cabin and saw the interior walls flexing in and out. He was pretty alarmed at this and brought it to the attention of the De Haviland engineers, warning that sooner or later the metal was going to fatigue and crack. De Havilands people said they were aware of the flexing and in their opinion it was nothing to be concerned with. Well, we all know what happened. Rickenbacker said later thank God Eastern Airlines didn't buy any Comets.
And Juniatha, what did a UP gas turbine sound like? Never heard one myself, but I met a former UP engineer several years ago who said they sounded just like a jet airliner at full take-off power. Stand by the end of an airport runway he said, and you'll get the idea.
Juniatha:
You probably don't need to be concerned of any rescue attempt of the three Connies....The one's I spoke of at the Kingman airport, no doubt, they have disappeared by now. Time frame for what I said about them goes back to about 1970.
Item: Good job of saving kitten.
creepycrankI think Pan Am initiated transatlantic flights with Boeing 707's in 1958.
Yes Sir...you are correct:
Take a look at how flying with Pan American used to be:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvkxa1O7Mec
.....Another classic youtube video....Interesting to look back Murray.
Hi Quentin
>> the last three … don’t know .. <<
Don’t tell me of stories like that , I’m afraid there is something in what my late dad said about my tendency to rescue ... I was at the age of 13 when from our children’s roaming grounds on the wild derelict Reichsbahn property I brought home a badly wounded cat – everyone said 'twas no good because she would have to die , only me I said “No ! she can make it with a little care and peaceful rest !” I was like fiercely prepared to fight off the reaper himself in case he would show up to call that cat – he never did . I treated her wounds and bandaged her . Once during the night I heard her limb around in my room , got up and brought her back into the cradle I had made up for her , comforted her a little while she was staring ahead with pupils dilated in horror of what a dreadful fight she must have been through . She recovered and eventually got well and stayed with us .
Hi Bucyrus
Not knowing the exact figures , let’s say the turbine is rated at 50 hp continuous output , the electric motors total 900 hp . As I wrote in one of my comments in topgear , copied in my above comment : if you confine yourself to using not more than an average of 50 hp , energy spending and re-loading of batteries will balance out and the cycle can go on as long as fuel tank provides . This would be like floating on a level highway at , say 50 – 60 mph constant speed , or moving in the city looking well ahead with but soft acceleration and braking to contain use of power . With sporty driving on a curvy road or on the up on a mountain road , it’s easy to use much more power on average , so there is a deficit in using and reloading battery power storage which will drain batteries the faster the more average use of power outruns re-loading . That’s what my croco visualization was about : circulation is too slow to keep up any hasty activity – after an outburst it has to retreat to ‘load up batteries’ .
What’s the advantage of a gas turbine over a diesel engine for re-loading ? Hm , good question – non in view of re-loading cycle as such . However , since this is a super sports car , idea was to keep everything about this re-loading equipment light and compact – that’s where you have a big advantage with a gas turbine !
There is always an inherent limit to improvement of thermal efficiency of engine concepts – in a nutshell , the limit is where thermo-dynamic efficiency becomes 100 % – which in practical engineering can be approached insignificantly easier than the speed of light . In gasoline or diesel engines perfecting thermal efficiency would have to ensure no heat energy loss by cooling , i e no cooling at all – it’s not too difficult to see this is still difficult to realize although indirect heat energy losses caused by that fraction of output consumed with friction have become greatly reduced over 1960s / 1970s V8 engines of classic Muscle Cars . Further advance comes by using modern materials with better heat resistance properties , most important for valves – exhaust valves namely – and piston heads , cylinder heads , too . The higher mean enthalpy drop , generally speaking pressure and temperature drop , the higher thermal efficiency .
>> in the US there is relatively little interest in developing the potential of diesels … US consumer market rejects diesels [as car engine] ..<<
Well , maybe the market would buy ... only the participants don’t – *g*
Why ? I guess they are all steam buffs who still bear a grudge against diesels – *g*
No – I don’t know what’s the reason or what are the reasons – yet I go with the lot , I prefer a gasoline engine in a car for smoother running and more liveliness – even though diesels have been made to run races , mainly by Audi winning 24 hours of LeMans – disgusting idea !
And smoky – oh-yeah , they can be smoky , even the modern extreme pressure injection engines – not when fresh from factory but after some X0.000 miles of heavy foot driving , and I for one feel it's really annoying to have to drive behind a diesel car with an aged engine emitting a plume of smoke each time it gets the pedal down after idling at the traffic light . Mercedes diesels were notorious with smoking , up to my time in the Nineties , I vividly remember holding breath regularly on my bike each time an E-class diesel taxi was launched at green light , leaving a black trail like your average octopus on the run , or when haphazardly dashing out from a side alley (bikers just rejoice with the thrill of it !) , making a turn and flooring it plus many more big ways of stepping on other participants in daily city traffic theatre .
>> I am surprised that perception cannot be overcome <<
Not me – I’m the same , I cannot overcome my lingering suspicion diesel engines are noisy , smoky and old fashioned – in fact I see them as more elderly out-fashioned than steam never-ever was – yet maybe that's because of my admittedly somewhat ‘personal’ view on steam .
Clunky ? hm , not for too long before loosing a piston and having a con rod see the light of day . likely .
Hi Firelock
Gee – the Gooney Goose two cylinder simple expansion E-6s PennAmerican air-train !
Wonder what a carbon-fibre quasi replica could do !
Hi Paul
How did they sound , these UP gas turbine electric units?
>> Eleanor Roosevelt died in Nov 1962. Quite a few years before the 707 <<
Ooh-oops ?
First flight of a Boeing 707 was in December 1957 . PanAm had ordered twenty in 1955 and cooperated in fundamental development decisions making aim accurate .
It’s true , 707s only became really present in daily civil aviation in the early sixties – the initial series of 7-X-7 family of Boeing airplanes marked a great technical achievement and commercial success , a daring project of some enterprise , since with the then mysterious de Havilland Comet 4 disaster and consequential grounding just a few years earlier it was by no ways clear airlines would embrace the new long range jetliner of then high capacity .
Creepy ‘mystery’ shrouding failure of the Comet 4 took some years to uncover : after much speculation , it was material fatigue caused by a vicious combination of design shaping and cycles of dynamic and static forces in actual flight causing cracks to develop from corners of windows which had been rectangular in the original version in an effort to provide better outlook for pasengers . When a thoroughly re-designed Comet 4 was finally taking to the air years later , the scene had changed : meanwhile Boeing’s 707 was flying and a more modern , higher capacity plane , too .
Time had passed the elegant Comet 4 with her unique ‘organic’ integration of jet engines in wing box of her just lightly slanted large area wings . Since finer values of design changes were difficult to explain and psychologically maybe remained somewhat theoretical to an unassuming public , passenger’s confidence could not be fully restored . Although plucky test pilots flew daring maneuvers with the new Comet 4 proving her solidity and air-worthiness , de Havilland’s initial civil jetliner was bound to disappear in history while Boeing wrote a golden chapter of company success and civil aviation progress with the very reliable and long lasting 707 .
I re-posted this one starting with "Hi Quentin ..." because it previously appeared incomplete .
Time sequence is confused now , this posting should belong in after posting Quentin "Eleanor Roosevelt died in 1962 ..."
Now it has answers before appearing , apparently .
Don't worry - be happy ..
= J =
......J:
Note I corrected my error on the 707 dates.
Boeing ( and Lockheed and Douglas) had a long history of successful pressurized cabin propeller driven airplanes before the Comet. Boeing started with the 307 Stratoliner of 1940, of course the B29 cabin was pressurize and the 377 Stratocruiser based on the B29 did also. After the war both Covair and Martin produced twin engine planes with pressurization so I would think that the details of how to do it would have been in all the trade journals. Its very likely that everyone went over all their design theories after the Comet disasters just in case they missed something. I think that the British rushed to whole thing forward to leapfrog the American trans-Atlantic prop jobs. I also think that the 707 and the DC8 had to wait for development of a suitable engine for the size they thought that would be required. I think it was 1956 or 57 when airplanes first carried more passengers than ocean liners so a bigger plane was called for.
Yes , I saw it - no problem .
My posting has moved down this discussion because
first I didn't get it posted then I reposted it just before because pervious appearance was incomplete .
Never mind - be kind !
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.