Potential F1 engines beyond the 2013 1.6L turbo L4

[WhiteBlue]

we're talking about 1000hp for a GT here, not a little 90hp machine.

I doubt that a primary engine will ever have more than 600 hp. The rest of the power that is needed will come from regenerative sources.

So this is just pure speculation on your part that dual fuel engines will be introduced. I'll believe when I see it but I doubt it will happen within the next 5 years at least. Developing something suitable for F1 use that is not too bulky or heavy would be an expensive exercise which could well be a wild goose chase.

Of course it is speculation. At this time it can be nothing else. But it would be the right thing to do considering that the engines would be more efficient, clean, use bio fuel and can use the 2013 formula.

[Edis]

Source
As an example, a Rolls Royce Avon Mk 60 turbojet consume about 1.5 kg fuel per second at full power, the compressor supplies 78 kg/s, so there is more than 50 kg air per kg fuel. Infact, only part of the airflow is supplied to the combustion chambers in the engine. Most of the air go around the combustion chambers in order to cool them while only a small part of the air enter in front of the flame holder, used to supply the combustion with oxygen. But all of the air will go through the turbines (which is not the case with a turbofan).

The efficiency of a small gas turbine isn't that great either. For instance a Garrett JSF100, a small 37 kg 90 hp gas turbine (one stage centrifugal compressor, one stage axial turbine and one stage axial power turbine) consume 800 g/kWh. That is roughly an efficiency of 10%. An Allison 250, a 62 kg 317 hp helicopter engine is better, but it still consumes 430 g/kWh, an efficiency of slightly below 20%.

With this kind of efficiency turboshafts will not be attractive.

Cherry picking i see, we had this discussion already. There are multi stage gas turbines with Intercool and reheat that greatly increase the efficiency.
What's more GT can use any fuel. When this is coupled with a KERS system we get even better mileage.
The aero dynamic benefits will also reduce drag, and reduce the dependence on wings to create downforce.
The GT can easily have a fan attachment that sucks air from underneath the car creating down-force.

A GT car wont need water radiators, only oil coolers. In the case of inter-cooled GTs, the fan can be used to cool the compressed air between compressor stages.

we're talking about 1000hp for a GT here, not a little 90hp machine.

While larger gas turbines perform better, their fuel consumption is still not good. A 1500-3000 hp class GE T700 for instance consume about 280 g/kWh. But a smaller engine, like the 600 hp class P&W PW200 need 330 g/kWh. Recuperators used to improve efficiency are heavy and bulky, which is why they aren't used on aerospace gas turbine engines.

Gas turbines generally don't use intercoolers and in reality they can't use any fuel without modification.

Using a fan with any other engine type would hardly be a problem.

[flynfrog]

Its really depends on the turbine. Especially if this turbine is going to be lecy coupled. Fuel consumption can be very good for a turbine. and some can burn most anything without any mods. Also the weight of a turbine would be lower than a pistons counterpart. NOt to mention you could run many seasons without a rebuild

[ringo]

If it's designed specifically for a 600kg car, it will be much lighter and efficient than existing turbines for relatively heavier aircraft. Most of those old GTs on the market are in fact 50's technology.
It's unfair to compare 50 year old mass production gas turbine to a modern bespoke race engine that only last 8 hours.

I think the GT should be given a chance to be developed by F1.
It has a few weaknesses, but it's still a better package than a piston engine. It's also a new challenge for F1.

bladon Jets are making 90hp from a 3kg engine that can fit in a shoebox.
http://www.automotiveworld.com/news//84 ... ne-hybrids

[WhiteBlue]

How many kW would you get from a turboshaft engine of no more than 80 kg weight, 75 kg fuel for a 90 min race, and exhaust gas temperature of no more than 50°C. The turbine must deliver usable rpm to a known race car. I would think you have to do exhaust gas regeneration to drop the temperatures and raise fuel efficiency. All that would be included in the weight limit. The fuel limit is calculated at 50% of 2010 use which is the most likely target for a 2016 or 2017 new engine.

[ringo]

Quite frankly i don't care much for fuel consumption.
I'll be burning bio fuels in my 42% thermally eficient GT when your still burning gasoline in a 33% efficient engine.
Low emmisions can provide enough lip service for public image as well. A GT emmisions can be more than 10 times lower than a piston engine.

But here's some reading so you can catch up with modern GT technology. Forget about the 60's machines.

http://www.tytlabs.co.jp/english/review ... ohkubo.pdf

This is the future. 2013 regulations may last for 5 years. That's a lot of time for GT developement. The piston engine is a dead end.

As i said the GT has some shortcomings, but this is mainly due to challenges with material and cost. Once there is interest for a 800hp or even a 600hp machine, we'll have drastic improvements in GT fuel consumption and efficiency.

Why do you want 50 degree exhaust?
About the 80kg weight for the GT engine, it can make the power, but i don't know about the 75kg of fuel. I don't think your piston engine is going to do that on it's own either.

[raymondu999]

Sounds good in theory right now... but I think that will require further testing. Also, shouldn't this be in the engine forum?

[747heavy]

It would be interesting to see, if the FIA is brave enough, to allow GT´s in racing/F1 in the future.
The extensive use of KERS can/will offset some of the main weakness of a GT (operation in transient load conditions).

How appealing the sound of such a car would be, is a different matter, but as allways it´s difficult to have it all.
Will be similar to a genset driving at constant rpm around the track (sure would be a genset running at ~40-50k rpm ).

One of the advantges of GT´s, which I´m sure every F1 designer worth it´s money would love, no cooling/radiators.

for interested parties:
http://issuu.com/racecargraphic/docs/rceteh119webpub/1

[WhiteBlue]

But here's some reading so you can catch up with modern GT technology. Forget about the 60's machines.
http://www.tytlabs.co.jp/english/review ... ohkubo.pdf.

Thanks for the source. It confirms that automotive systems will only make sense with regenerators which will drop exhaust temperatures and pre heat the intake air. The assumptions are all based on radial compressors and turbines made from ceramic materials which have not been successfully commercialized. Quite contrary the current crop of micro turbines seem to be of the axial variety and use steel for the rotors.

The biggest problem still seems to be turbine inlet temperature (TIT) which is 1,500°C for ceramic and probably 1,100°C or lower for metallic rotors. To achieve such low temps the turbo shaft engine must still compress huge amounts of excess air well beyond the stoichiometric needs of the combustion. The problem is compounded by the fact that huge exhaust gas streams (Jet wash) with several hundred °C temperature cannot be released into the wake of the race car without risk to the following car and his driver. And thus you are caught in a dilemma. Regenerators as used by the Chrysler automotive turbine are heavy and bulky and they contribute to even higher TITs.

If you can find a compromise which gives you a micro turbine with acceptable exhaust temperature and weight you are still faced with the dilemma of a shaft speed well beyond the usable range of a race car. So you have to add further weight by a reduction transmission. Using an electric transmission is not likely to improve over all efficiency and acceptance of the engine by the motor sport fans.

My impression at this point from MGT for race cars is stagnation and not rapid progress as you suggest.

[747heavy]

My impression at this point from MGT for race cars is stagnation and not rapid progress as you suggest.

Being outlawed in allmost any form of racing, has probably something to do with it, don´t you think?
Why would you develop technology, which you can´t use at the moment?

[machin]

This GT is way over power (and hence size and weight) for a car, but for ship propulsion it is much smaller than a comparably powered internal combustion engine...


http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www. ... ntxkZdMrmA

application of the same technology (if rules were changed!) would no doubt show some benefits for cars....

[ringo]

But here's some reading so you can catch up with modern GT technology. Forget about the 60's machines.
http://www.tytlabs.co.jp/english/review ... ohkubo.pdf.

Thanks for the source. It confirms that automotive systems will only make sense with regenerators which will drop exhaust temperatures and pre heat the intake air. The assumptions are all based on radial compressors and turbines made from ceramic materials which have not been successfully commercialized. Quite contrary the current crop of micro turbines seem to be of the axial variety and use steel for the rotors.

The biggest problem still seems to be turbine inlet temperature (TIT) which is 1,500°C for ceramic and probably 1,100°C or lower for metallic rotors. To achieve such low temps the turbo shaft engine must still compress huge amounts of excess air well beyond the stoichiometric needs of the combustion.

We don't know if that is still the case with ceramic turbine blades.
http://americas.kyocera.com/kicc/news/n ... m?key=1790
The higher turbine temps are desirable, but with increased control of combustion, and ceramic components there will be little need to use the compressed air to cool the blades.

The problem is compounded by the fact that huge exhaust gas streams (Jet wash) with several hundred °C temperature cannot be released into the wake of the race car without risk to the following car and his driver. And thus you are caught in a dilemma. Regenerators as used by the Chrysler automotive turbine are heavy and bulky and they contribute to even higher TITs.

Jet wash? This is a turboshaft, not a turbo jet, the exhaust energy is very low. Regenerators aren't necessarily heavy and bulky either. It's just a heat exchanger which i'm sure is lighter than a radiator full of water.
Again modern materials can easily be used. Also keep in mind that something considered heavy in the aviation world is probably light in the land vehicle world.

If you can find a compromise which gives you a micro turbine with acceptable exhaust temperature and weight you are still faced with the dilemma of a shaft speed well beyond the usable range of a race car. So you have to add further weight by a reduction transmission. Using an electric transmission is not likely to improve over all efficiency and acceptance of the engine by the motor sport fans.

Most gas turbine weights include the gearbox weight. The exhaust temperature is not an issue. 250 degrees celcius is cold for any engine exhuast. A turbo F1 car exhausts at about 750 degrees.

My impression at this point from MGT for race cars is stagnation and not rapid progress as you suggest.

In comparison to a piston engine?
The GT hasn't even been given a chance.

Regeneration isn't the only way to improve efficiency either. Placing an intercooler between the 2 stages of compression would greatly increase efficiency.
Funny how i haven't seen that being mentioned in these articles.

[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.

[ringo]

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

Forget about fuel consumption at the moment, because you applying all kind of recovery systems to the piston engine without realizing these very same technologies ca be used on a GT with better results.
Also keep in mind how much faster a lap a high torque GT engine will be compared to a piston engine.

I was going to draw up a concept to show some potential benefits but when i get the time.
MS paint as usual.

[hollus]

I know we all love high power numbers, but I am getting the feeling that such gas turbine car (minus large radiators) could be narrower, much narrower than a current car. The offset in drag should reduce the power requirements by a lot, considered from the point of view of lap time.