Potential F1 engines beyond the 2013 1.6L turbo L4

[ringo]

* Engine: gas turbine, 1483bhp @ 15,000RPM, 527lb ft @ 12,000RPM =D>
* Transmission: continuously variable, rear-wheel drive
* Top Speed: 249mph
* Weight: 545kg
* Length/Width/Height: 4750/2180/980mm
* Suzuka Lap Time: 1:11.540 (compare with Vettel’s 2009 F1 lap time of 1:30.833)
* Special Features: enclosed wheels, “fan element” to increase low and medium-speed downforce (much like a vacuum cleaner)


Hmm? I wonder about that GT, if it's inspired from an existing machine?

This says nothing about fuel consumption since it's not restricted by any regulation. This car gives an idea of what Newey is considering when he thinks zero compromise.
Using this lap time with a 0.165kg/hp.hr consumption.

0.165*1483 hp*(71.54s * 53 laps /3600)hrs = 257 kg of fuel.

No problems here, we'll introduce refueling. Current lap record 1:31.54. The car can even afford to refuel every lap if needs be if it was racing the 2005 v10 cars.

However i think with a engine designed for 800hp, we can have a light weight 540kg car with major improvements in that 0.165kg/hp.hr consumption figure.
With the use of biofuels as well, it's possible that consumption wont even matter, seeing as though it's not fossil fuel. I still care for increased economy nonetheless.

[flynfrog]

I'm surprised that all the UAVs the military and civil operators use are fitted with piston engines and wankels then. Normally you would expect them to use turbines as in manned vehicles, but turbines don't seem to be able to reach the efficiency requirements for that application. So one wonders why such a strong commercial demand with a turbine friendly customer has not led to a viable solution?
75 kg/h at 440 kW means 170 g/kWh which is a long way away from current MGT territory.

sorry this is completely wrong Ive built the turbines for some of them. Most have them have pretty old tech as far as matl. goes the focus is on low cost not highest performance. Most of your assumptions are being based off of 40s tech GT comparing them to ICE engines that don't exist.

[machin]

I'm surprised that all the UAVs the military and civil operators use are fitted with piston engines and wankels then

Piston engines are cheap, very cheap. A UAV is a waste of a gas turbine.

Re. Target drones Ringo you're spot on; When I was at Uni I worked with Ilmor on the Voodoo target drone... it uses a tuned Triumph motorcycle engine... solely on cost grounds....

[flynfrog]

that is also incorrect most of the drones are turbine or rocket powered pistons and wankels are not fast enough.

[ringo]

some are pulse jet as well. Rockets pulse jets, all cheap stuff.
Referring to target drones, i don't much much about those drones they use in air strikes.

[machin]

that is also incorrect most of the drones are turbine or rocket powered pistons and wankels are not fast enough.

So I dreamt my final year at Uni then?!

And I made up this web page? http://www.aviationweek.com/shownews/02 ... rfrm23.htm

Don't get me wrong...I'm on your side; I'm all for GT's.. my point was that the reason that some drones and UAV's use piston engines is on cost grounds, not because GT's aren't good enough as Whiteblue was inferring. I sat down with the guys from Ilmor and that is exactly the reason that they gave for using the Triumph motorbike engine. They also confirmed that it would be slower than a GT-engined one, but much more cost effective -hence the market opportunity for them to get involved in the project.

If GT's were allowed by the rules I'm sure that many of the costs and shortcomings would be overcome... For example I like 747h's idea to combine it with a KERS system to get over the spooling issue....

[flynfrog]

that is also incorrect most of the drones are turbine or rocket powered pistons and wankels are not fast enough.

So I dreamt my final year at Uni then?!

And I made up this web page? http://www.aviationweek.com/shownews/02 ... rfrm23.htm

Don't get me wrong...I'm on your side; I'm all for GT's.. my point was that the reason that some drones and UAV's use piston engines is on cost grounds, not because GT's aren't good enough as Whiteblue was inferring. I sat down with the guys from Ilmor and that is exactly the reason that they gave for using the Triumph motorbike engine. They also confirmed that it would be slower than a GT-engined one, but much more cost effective -hence the market opportunity for them to get involved in the project.
If GT's were allowed by the rules I'm sure that many of the costs and shortcomings would be overcome... For example I like 747h's idea to combine it with a KERS system to get over the spooling issue....

I love that airframe btw. We are getting off topic so we should switch directions. You are correct that some use piston engines. It depends what type of target it is trying to simulate. A target meant to mimic a missile isn't going to be going fast enough by using a piston engine. Also most of the GT engine are reused if they survive.


Back to GT and how they relate to Cars. There was a pretty serous effort by Chrysler to bring GT cars main stream in the 60s The test cars were getting better mileage than there Piston counter parts could go very long intervals with no service and burnt anything that would go through the injectors. The main drawback was lack of high temp materials at affordable prices. With modern nickle alloys coming down in price (not that this really matters for F1) I see no reason that a GT wouldn't out preform a piston engine. They almost won indy twice had it not been for a gearbox.






More reading on the indy car :
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm

More reading on the Chrysler:
http://www.allpar.com/mopar/turbine.html

[machin]

How about the Howmet TX?

Start-up:-
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrQi6sh7XbI[/youtube]

Onboard:-
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk8tfSFOJ9Q&NR=1[/youtube]

[machin]

Its quite a neat drive arrangement:-

Quote from here:- http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/car/2827/Howmet-TX.html

This engine featured a two-stage set-up; a gas-generating turbine fed a second turbine that was connected to an output shaft.

The lag problem was solved by fitting two waste-gates between the two turbines. At 1/3 throttle all the gasses were fed through the waste-gates and out the centre exhaust. This way the blades kept spinning but the engine generated no power. As more throttle was applied the waste-gates closed gradually, feeding more and more gasses to the second turbine. At full throttle the engine produced around 325 bhp, which was very impressive considering it only weighed 77 kg.

A further advantage of the turbine engine was its completely flat power curve, so it did not require a conventional gearbox. It was instead mated to a Continental gearbox that featured just one forward gear. A separate electric-motor was used if reverse was required. A quick-change differential was used so the final drive ratio could be adapted to each track's characteristics.

[WhiteBlue]

I'm surprised that all the UAVs the military and civil operators use are fitted with piston engines and wankels then. Normally you would expect them to use turbines as in manned vehicles, but turbines don't seem to be able to reach the efficiency requirements for that application. So one wonders why such a strong commercial demand with a turbine friendly customer has not led to a viable solution?
75 kg/h at 440 kW means 170 g/kWh which is a long way away from current MGT territory.

sorry this is completely wrong Ive built the turbines for some of them. Most have them have pretty old tech as far as matl. goes the focus is on low cost not highest performance. Most of your assumptions are being based off of 40s tech GT comparing them to ICE engines that don't exist.

Target drones have been known for a long time but they are not the bulk of the UAV which tends to be tasked with reconnaissance and to a smaller degree with weapons deployment.

I'm aware that the initial focus of reconnaissance UAVs like the global hawk were turbine powered. AFAIK the program had massive cost overrun and only 54 units were actually in the final plan to be build by 2015. The focus on turbines must have changed pretty quickly. If you check out what the services actually buy in numbers and deploy the picture is different.

AAI RQ-7, 322 units planned for aquisition
Boeing ScanEagle, at least hundred units
General Atomics MQ-1 Predator, 360 units build

An exception seems to be hunter killer UAVs like the General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper which is being build in small numbers to replace fighter and attack planes in high risk mission. As of 2009 the U.S. Air Force’s fleet stands at 195 Predators and 28 Reapers. It appears that the bulk the missions can be done by sub GT equipped UAVs.

But UAVs are not the core issue here. I was just pointing out that low and medium power, high efficiency applications are not usually served by gas turbines. It is an indisputable fact that gas turbines generally are a failure in land vehicles and cannot even compete in heavy applications like trucks and tanks. The only known mass application is the M1 Abrams main battle tank. It was politically motivated and has become a total disaster to the American tax payer when compared to the cost of highly efficient diesel propulsion systems.

To qualify for a 2016 or 2017 F1 primary engine a 500 kW MGT would have to run on 170 g/kWh fuel and would have to weight under 80 kg including recuperation and reduction gear. I haven't seen anything that would suggest such a unit would be feasible.

[ringo]

Its quite a neat drive arrangement:-

Quote from here:- http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/car/2827/Howmet-TX.html

This engine featured a two-stage set-up; a gas-generating turbine fed a second turbine that was connected to an output shaft.

The lag problem was solved by fitting two waste-gates between the two turbines. At 1/3 throttle all the gasses were fed through the waste-gates and out the centre exhaust. This way the blades kept spinning but the engine generated no power. As more throttle was applied the waste-gates closed gradually, feeding more and more gasses to the second turbine. At full throttle the engine produced around 325 bhp, which was very impressive considering it only weighed 77 kg.

A further advantage of the turbine engine was its completely flat power curve, so it did not require a conventional gearbox. It was instead mated to a Continental gearbox that featured just one forward gear. A separate electric-motor was used if reverse was required. A quick-change differential was used so the final drive ratio could be adapted to each track's characteristics.

The car was flying for just 325hp. I guess the flat power curve is responsible.
The engine almost seemed as if it was too much for the chassis.
It's not too bad in the turns either, but a lot of fuel is wasted when it's off throttle.
It's starting to look scary if the power was doubled, or even tripled like in the Redbull X1. The torque may be overwhelming.

[flynfrog]

It is an indisputable fact that gas turbines generally are a failure in land vehicles and cannot even compete in heavy applications like trucks and tanks. The only known mass application is the M1 Abrams main battle tank. It was politically motivated and has become a total disaster to the American tax payer when compared to the cost of highly efficient diesel propulsion systems.

well since you can decree fact I guess we are done here

Did you even read my post above? The Chrysler turbine cars were a huge success better efficiency longer service intervals ect. Killed by the US govt as they thought them to be to risky.

the turbine indy cars were a few miles short of a one two at indy when the fuel pumps failed. They were quickly banned due to threats from piston teams to leave the sport.

Both of the big three had turbine prototype trucks and the engines were unbelievably tiny and light compared to the diesel counter parts. They never got to far in development as the companies didn't want to retool. From what I have been told the files were long sense lost they had much more torque with a similar fuel consumption.


You are also forgetting how much more streamlined a turbine car could be. no sidepods were cut off much drag allow for more aggressive wings so even if the motor made more power it could make it up in corner speed.

[ringo]

The funny thing is that those old engines weren't even designed for racing use.
Imagine if a GT is purpose built for racing?

[flynfrog]

The funny thing is that those old engines weren't even designed for racing use.
Imagine if a GT is purpose built for racing?

nickle alloy stack ceramic diffuser electric coupling

no need for oil use the fuel for lubricant
fuel preheating for heat recovery.
can also serve as a suction underbody blown wing no cooling needed

[WhiteBlue]

It is an indisputable fact that gas turbines generally are a failure in land vehicles and cannot even compete in heavy applications like trucks and tanks. The only known mass application is the M1 Abrams main battle tank. It was politically motivated and has become a total disaster to the American tax payer when compared to the cost of highly efficient diesel propulsion systems.

well since you can decree fact I guess we are done here

Did you even read my post above? The Chrysler turbine cars were a huge success better efficiency longer service intervals ect. Killed by the US govt as they thought them to be to risky.

the turbine indy cars were a few miles short of a one two at indy when the fuel pumps failed. They were quickly banned due to threats from piston teams to leave the sport.

Both of the big three had turbine prototype trucks and the engines were unbelievably tiny and light compared to the diesel counter parts. They never got to far in development as the companies didn't want to retool. From what I have been told the files were long sense lost they had much more torque with a similar fuel consumption.


You are also forgetting how much more streamlined a turbine car could be. no sidepods were cut off much drag allow for more aggressive wings so even if the motor made more power it could make it up in corner speed.

I don't decree facts. I just record them. The 1963 Chrysler gas turbine car wasn't a success. The 50 units produced were not loved by the public (engine sound and MGU problems were recorded as complaints) and they did not meet the NOx emission legislation. The 1966 Dodge charger solved the emission problem but by then Chrysler had commercially failed due to their unsuccessful product development strategy. Those are facts.

It is no big surprise that the insolvency administrator asked them to can the project. IMO it will have saved the US tax payer from another monetary disaster like the Chrysler Abrams turbine. If a huge private corporation cannot develop and market a new technology from their own financial resources and goes bust how likely is it that a government organization will be successful where the industry has failed.

Perhaps a gas turbine can theoretically compete with ICEs in automotive applications but it has never been demonstrated successfully. This means all the GT promoters have the burden of proof of 60 years of industrial practice against them. In the absence of positive facts all you can do is design such a thing and demonstrate it. We have engineers here who could at least propose the basic design data for a GT meeting the requirements for a post 1.6L turbo engine. So why don't you do this and point out where your design beats all the existing turboshaft engines. That would be more credible than conspiracy theories.