Bottom line: Better use a rotary or even a very small turbine which is optimized for shaft power.Ron Patrick wrote:Street racing action. The other guy wimped out after a few "big-fire" demonstrations. What you see in the picture is about one-twentieth the full size of the fireball. Guy standing beside car had never seen it run before and was smiling ear-to-ear throughout the show. Had I launched, I would have burned him to a crisp. Well, live and learn.
edit: sorry after rereading this I cannot understand what you mean010010011010 wrote:How do you to keep it at its most efficent load if its driving the wheels?autogyro wrote:The wankel would be controlled to keep it at the most efficient load when either driving the vehicle or acting as a battery charge generator
By making it small enough to be working at full load when minimum demand is made on it without any augmentation from the electric hybrid energy and keeping this so as demand increases and more use is made of the electrical power.
In your opinion yes, but i would be of the view that a purely electric drive would be more efficent (less fun, but still more efficent). Also this thing of efficively 'afterburning' the engine, what if you took the big rotating engine out of the equation and replaced it with a very simple centrifugal compressor?autogyro wrote: IMO devlopment of this would result in a cleaner and more efficient ic hybrid than either conventional reciprocating matched or turbine matched.
The M1 Abrahams must be the worst vehicle in terms of efficiency on the planet.ISLAMATRON wrote:isn't most of the energy thrown out the back in the form of thrust? how efficient would it be in translating that through a turbine and into an electrical generator?
Jet engines are designed to operate moreso at high altitudes with tremendous volumetric flow, can they be efficiently used in a land vehicle operation... the only example that comes to mind is the M1 abrams... are there others?
All of the big three have developed turbine cars. Chrysler made it the farthest publicly.ISLAMATRON wrote:isn't most of the energy thrown out the back in the form of thrust? how efficient would it be in translating that through a turbine and into an electrical generator?
Jet engines are designed to operate moreso at high altitudes with tremendous volumetric flow, can they be efficiently used in a land vehicle operation... the only example that comes to mind is the M1 abrams... are there others?
Fuel efficiency compared to diesel engined tanks as the Leopard II is poor and engine life in desert conditions must be terribly short.flynfrog wrote: the Abrams is probably one of the best tanks ever built sorry you think since it doesn't have the union jack is must be terrible. But its service record says other wise.
Wikipedia wrote:The gas turbine propulsion system has proven quite reliable in practice and combat, but its high fuel consumption is a serious logistic issue (starting up the turbine alone consumes nearly 10 US gallons (38 L) of fuel).[28] The engine burns more than 1 US gallon (3.8 L) per mile and 12 US gallons (45 L) per hour when idle.[29] The high speed, high temperature jet blast emitted from the rear of M1 Abrams tanks makes it difficult for the infantry to proceed shadowing the tank in urban combat. The turbine is very quiet when compared to diesel engines of similar power output and produces a significantly different sound from a contemporary diesel tank engine, reducing the audible distance of the sound, thus earning the Abrams the nickname "whispering death" during its first REFORGER exercise. .... Future US tanks may return to reciprocating engines for propulsion, as 4-stroke diesel engines have proven quite successful in other modern heavy tanks, e.g. the Leopard 2, Challenger 2 and Merkava.
700 hours of original engine life under standard conditions is pretty ridiculous. Tanks typically let their engines idle in combat type of situations to be able to move fairly quickly. This would wear out a tank engine in four weeks without even running a single mile, not even considering the detrimental effect of sand in desert type of combat environments.Defense_industry wrote:We will deliver performance-based logistics and engineering design improvements facilitating an integrated lifecycle management approach to significantly reduce operating costs while doubling the service life of overhauled AGT1500 engines from 700 to 1,400 hours.
from your quoted site.The gas turbine engine provides unmatched acceleration, but consumes a lot a fuel. Estimates vary, but the combat average (not highway cruise average) from various sources is about three gallons per mile (not miles per gallon). This is about three times more than similar diesel engines. A diesel engine with three times the fuel efficiency could triple the range of Abrams tanks. The Abrams looks great charging across the desert at high speed during peacetime exercises, but this is impractical on most of the earth's surface. Wise tankers generally advance at a steady pace, lest they get ambushed.
Turbines in tanks are crap. The potentially higher speed has no operational advantage and is sacrificed by an engine governor anyway. An engine that needs replacing after 4 weeks of use, drinks three times the fuel of it's direct competitor, busts the owner in maintenance cost, has the heat signature of an independence day firework and leads to 50% of all weapon systems being down for maintenance isn't desirable at all. Have a look at what the Marines are getting:flynfrog wrote:The Abrams is by far the best suited tank to its environment. yes it drinks fuel but it is much faster and has a higher payload than any other tank.
I ment just replcae the wankel and put in a simple compressor, making it a jet turbineautogyro wrote:color=#FF0000]edit: sorry after rereading this I cannot understand what you mean[/color]
That's becuase it's not meant to be. It's designed to be a MBT, not to get you to the shops using the lest amount of petrol. The reason why they used a gas turbine was because it can run on pretty much anything. Petrol, Diesel, Kerosene, chip pan fat, you name it the turbine will combust it.autogyro wrote:The M1 Abrahams must be the worst vehicle in terms of efficiency on the planet.
Even for a main battle tank the figures look atrocious. Three gallons per mile or 710 L/100km compares to 220L/100km for a modern diesel 60 ton MBT.xxChrisxx wrote:That's becuase it's not meant to be. It's designed to be a MBT, not to get you to the shops using the lest amount of petrol.autogyro wrote:The M1 Abrahams must be the worst vehicle in terms of efficiency on the planet.
You mean a complete turbine engine then?010010011010 wrote:I ment just replcae the wankel and put in a simple compressor, making it a jet turbineautogyro wrote:color=#FF0000]edit: sorry after rereading this I cannot understand what you mean[/color]
