What will come after the 2.4 V8?

[djos]

http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_ ... t_id=40589

pitpass is reporting the FIA is also considering a gas turbine engine :S

Not exactly what you'd call an efficient engine (in a car), certainly would be loud enuf tho!

[autogyro]

http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_ ... t_id=40589

pitpass is reporting the FIA is also considering a gas turbine engine :S

If they go this route, we can but hope that there will be no more volcanic eruptions caused by global warming. If there are, not only will the teams have problems getting home, they will not be able to race either.

[flynfrog]

http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_ ... t_id=40589

pitpass is reporting the FIA is also considering a gas turbine engine :S

If they go this route, we can but hope that there will be no more volcanic eruptions caused by global warming. If there are, not only will the teams have problems getting home, they will not be able to race either.

Do I really need to point out the blatant factual errors in your statement?

I have yet to see one credible study links global warming with volcanic eruptions maybe the other direction.

Second it wasn't the jet engines that had a problem it was the EU. Besides if its bad enough for a turbine to have problems from dirt a close tolerance F1 piston engine doesn't have a chance.

The racing on an ash covered track would be interesting though might have to switch to paddles

[autogyro]

I suppose the next suggestion will be a rocket engine,
or maybe a delta shaped car!!!!!

[flynfrog]

Jato push to pass?

[Paul]

Didn't Webber use it once already this season?

[autogyro]

God those Stratojets were filthy, what is the fuel they burned, glue?!!
Still at least they were not a suicide vehicle like the one before the B45.
The crews would never have got back in one of them and they knew it.
All to do with some 'Dream' thing if I remember.
Anyway this has nothing to do with a replacement for the 2.4 V8, although ideas like turbine engines would be making a similar mistake to these obsolete nuclear bombers.

[autogyro]

On the ground in the picture it look like at least three B36s, the first 10 engined nuclear bomber of SAC, the Jat Stratojet was only the second stop gap with the earlier B45 before the B52 came into service.
A close friend of mine flew the B36 at SAC under General Curtis LeMay. Six piston engines and four turbo jets.
He also helped bring the first British jet bomber squadron into service with the canberra. The British V bombers Vulcan, Victor and Valiant were far better aircraft and as usual could carry a much bigger load.

[andrew]

I think Button tried this in Melbourne a couple years ago.

But seriously, Lotus tried this with some success. The 56B was on pole in Indy and lead until the engine failed with a couple laps to go.

[autogyro]

A bit different at Indy, thats like slot car racing.
Prior to the Lotus most indy cars were modified lorries.

[WhiteBlue]

I don't think anybody takes that turbine article any serious. A jet is way behind in fuel efficiency compared to ICE and cannot be structural part of the chassis. We do have a problem with turbulence now but then we would have jet wash on top of that. The proposal is simply the product of a moronic mind in my view. No engineering consideration whatsoever.

God those Stratojets were filthy, what is the fuel they burned, glue?!

No, they burned good old JP5 or very similar kerosene. The fuel efficiency of the early jet engines was so low that they trailed lots of unburned carbon molecules from unburned fuel in their wake, particularly on afterburners.

That looks like an YB-36G with six jets only. Probably 1949.





The Americans got their first military jet engines from the German Me 262 in 1945 at the end of WWII.

I put the YB-36G picture at the end of the 40ties begin of the 50ties perhaps four to six design years after WWII. By visual comparison you can see that the design had not much evolved yet. Particularly high power jets were still a thing of the future.

The Americans had fantastic conventional air frames in bomber size at that time but it took them 15 years to get jet engines on a comparable power level to lift the take off weights those frames could carry. The B-52s had eight engines and that wasn't enough.

[Pingguest]

Your solution sound quite artificial to me. Any way, I can't see why fuel-flow limits wouldn't give manufactures an incentive to use the leanest internal combustion engine. As the amount of fuel is limited, manufactures will have to make their engines more fuel-efficient to get more power out of them. Besides, a maximum fuel allowance is impractical for qualifying, don't you think?

You are contradicting yourself. A solution with max fuel flow isn't limiting the amount of fuel in any practical way. It is limiting the flow rate. I did not mention qualifying because I would not do any thing there. Let them have a go without limit except the longevity. Naturally the engines have to live as long as they have to live now because we need low engine prices. F1 must never go back to the silly spending when engines alone cost a billion $ per year.

It is the nature of an F1 race that only a certain percentage like 40-70% runs on full throttle. It is the other 60-30% were you can save significantly if you employ the best lean running technique. None of the new technologies does improve the efficiency much on full throttle but they help on a partial load. If you set the total fuel load to 90% of what is normally needed you give an incentive to find max fuel saving under partial load conditions. Those teams and manufacturers who manage to find such savings will be able to continue to run with the same max power when it is needed. So by finding those savings they will not loose speed when the amount of fuel gets restricted more and more every year.

In other words: at peak power teams and manufactures will continue to use the same amount of fuel. I agree manufactures should get an incentive to lower fuel consumption at partial load, but fuel consumption should be lowered while going flat-out too. Taking this in consideration, shouldn't Formula 1 have both fuel-flow limits and fuel tank size limits?

I don't understand what you mean by artificial. It either works or it works not. Current qualifying format is rather complicated but it works well and provides the spectacle. Why should the limited fuel tank not work the same way. It works in Le Mans and I just made a little change for F1.

If Formula 1 chooses for a fuel tank size limit, it should accept all non-artificial consequences including drivers running out of fuel.

[Pandamasque]

Do I really need to point out the blatant factual errors in your statement?

I have yet to see one credible study links global warming with volcanic eruptions maybe the other direction.

Everyone 'knows' that everything that's wrong in the world today is because of glow-ball-worming and that happens solely because of THE good CARs.

If they go this route, we can but hope that there will be no more volcanic eruptions caused by global warming. If there are, not only will the teams have problems getting home, they will not be able to race either.

Yeees! In future they should fly to Asia and back more often carrying their econobox-engined cars back and forth, that would improve the 'footprint' of Formula1 and volcanoes will never erupt again.

(I'll go and wash myself now, so many clichés in one post felt dirty)

[flynfrog]

I don't think anybody takes that turbine article any serious. A jet is way behind in fuel efficiency compared to ICE and cannot be structural part of the chassis. We do have a problem with turbulence now but then we would have jet wash on top of that. The proposal is simply the product of a moronic mind in my view. No engineering consideration whatsoever.

God those Stratojets were filthy, what is the fuel they burned, glue?!

No, they burned good old JP5 or very similar kerosene. The fuel efficiency of the early jet engines was so low that they trailed lots of unburned carbon molecules from unburned fuel in their wake, particularly on afterburners.

That looks like an YB-36G with six jets only. Probably 1949.





The Americans got their first military jet engines from the German Me 262 in 1945 at the end of WWII.

I put the YB-36G picture at the end of the 40ties begin of the 50ties perhaps four to six design years after WWII. By visual comparison you can see that the design had not much evolved yet. Particularly high power jets were still a thing of the future.

The Americans had fantastic conventional air frames in bomber size at that time but it took them 15 years to get jet engines on a comparable power level to lift the take off weights those frames could carry. The B-52s had eight engines and that wasn't enough.

It will never happen but a turbine could be a better choice than an ICE. An undersized turbine combined with a electric drive system could be very good. As for jet wash the though of jet blown diffusers should make the wake less of a problem. Hot gas ingestion might be another story.


At the risk of giving this thread a throw way off the track. The b52 has outlived 3 of its "replacements." The Air Force has been using them to test alternative fuels so maybe it balances out of the cloud generators. They also plan on keeping them in service till the late 2030s. How many planes still fly when they are 80 years old.

[autogyro]

Probably the Mk4 Nimrod.
Maybe a version of the Victor airframe.
The B52 is a good aircraft for what it is, a high altitude blanket bomber.
It is good enough to do the job against poorly defended targets when full air superiority is held by the Americans.
The concept of nuclear bomber is long gone and the present roles of the B52 are solely against weak, usualy undefended countries.
The British V bombers apart from the Valiant, would do a far better job but unlike the Americans, Britain has had no imperial drive that has secured other peoples recources through invasions to pay for such aircraft for over 50 years.
A friend of mine has a Jumo engine from the wartime Heinkel twin jet bomber, similar engine to the one in the ME262, he has also used the little starter motor that sits in the nose cone of a Jumo to power a sailplane.
The Whittle engine (the first jet engine to be developed) in the British meteor of WW2 (there were no American jets in WW2), was given both to the Americans and the Russians by a stupid British government. We should still be getting paid by them for using 'our' jets today instead of suffering under their useless global greed economics.