Ryanjames17
Airman
- 45
- Jul 26, 2018
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Does that mean that turbochargers are out too? They also require high temperature alloys.
BMW's turbo design featured an air cooled turbine.
Wright's power recovery turbines for the R-3350 turbo-compound also used air cooling.
Allison's V-1710-127 (E27) used a turbine developed from the GE C-series turbo (as used on P-47), but at WEP the exhaust temperature was too hot for that. Further development would have seen an air cooled turbine.
Air cooled turbine blades were being developed for the German gas turbines towards the end of the war. I can't recall if any were fitted to the BMW 003 or Jumo 004, but I would be surprised if they were. The next generation of turbines certainly would have featured air cooling.
Conventional wisdom suggests that the reliability of German turbojets was affected by the lack of the metals required for high temperature alloys. That may be the case, but other factors must also have been involved - the situation of the war, for example.
Fuel wise, gas turbines are far less fussy than spark ignition piston engines. If fuel quality is a problem the Merlins, DB605s, etc, of the world will suffer more than turbines.
What about steam turbines? Junkers had designed a 3,000hp steam turbine at the start of WW2, and, IIRC, there were two proposed for the Me 264 program - one of 4,000hp and one of 6,000hp. The Me 264 steam turbines were to run on 35% petrol/65% pulverised coal. The system power-to-weight ratio was said to be similar to that of a piston engine.
Steam turbines have been around since 1884, and by WW2 they were everywhere generating electricity.
Steam turbines run at lower temperatures, so much less of an issue with materials.
Probably not suitable for single engine machines, but certainly viable for big multis, like the Me 264 or Boeing B-29.
Postwar, they were going to use just kerosene fuel for jets but were told by the oil industry that would not work. You only get a certain amount of kerosene out of a barrel of oil; you actually get more gasoline than kerosene. JP-3 was developed because if they just used the kerosene they would have a lot of gasoline left over; so they came up with a mixture.
The 11K hp from small automotive V8s is for how long? seconds?The whole fuel argument is easy. The use of CI or diesel technology cures that and adds hugely to the efficiency and economy as well.
As far as HP vs weight there are claims of 11k HP from small automotive V8's, yeah yeah I know. But is proof of what can be done. And like others say the whole issue is the cost and engineering required. If there really was an oil shortage believe me they aircraft manufactures would be scrambling to find a super efficient engine and it would not be a turbine.
oh yeah
"The engine is warmed up for about 80 seconds. After the warm up the valve covers are taken off, oil is changed and the car is refueled. The run including tire warming is about 100 seconds which results in a "lap" of about three minutes. After each lap, the entire engine is disassembled and examined, and worn or damaged components are replaced."
I think you mean a lap of around 3 seconds (1/8 mile?).
I'm just glad there are some folks that aren't stuck in a box, else inventions and refinements would be nonexistent. Even your precious turbine would not have come to fruition. I like how the one fellow above says they are way more efficient than piston engines, how come my little 50 mpg car doesn't use one?