Whatever Happened to Reengineering the Gas Turbine Car

[jonovid]

whatever happened to the gas turbine car, this is one cool sounding vehicle


Chrysler Turbine Car Ride With Sound!

1962 to 1964 Chrysler Turbine Car
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Turbine_Car

the gas turbine electric vehicle vs the all electric battery vehicle.
some of my ideas on reengineering the gas turbine vehicle.
gas electric turboshaft powers the average vehicle energy demand.
with use of twin turbo out of phase acoustic noise cancellation on a common axle, use of exhaust heat recuperators
now add supercapacitors to an electric powertrain for peak demand and also for regenerative braking.
a vehicle that can run on a range of fuels including diesel, biofuels, compressed natural gas and liquid petroleum gas.

[f5r5e5d]

NOx regulation?

[jonovid]

NOx regulation?

isn't that always the case. was a time when anything was possible .    now its only what is set by bureaucracy.
I am sure Elon Musk's hyperloop design fails occupant safety regulations for emergency exit doors in the event of fire in the cab.
maybe he gets a free pass on that one?       besides yet to be invented improvements in technology.

this is a better video of 1963 chrysler turbine car 

1963 Chrysler Turbine: Ultimate Edition - Jay Leno's Garage

[Mr. Scram]

Gas turbines back then were direcly driving the engine, rather than having an electric stage, which meant laggy throttle and acceleration response and other issues.

I don't think a turbine powered hybrid is going to be widely accepted any more. Even though piston engines aren't ideal, they're very well developed and quite cheap. Meanwhile, full on electric cars are being improved rapidly and possibly most importantly, legislation seems to favour full electric cars every more over hybrid solutions.

I think I read about a company working on turbine solutions though, so maybe we'll see some examples pop up.

[jonovid]

Gas turbines back then were direcly driving the engine, rather than having an electric stage, which meant laggy throttle and acceleration response and other issues.

I don't think a turbine powered hybrid is going to be widely accepted any more. Even though piston engines aren't ideal, they're very well developed and quite cheap. Meanwhile, full on electric cars are being improved rapidly and possibly most importantly, legislation seems to favour full electric cars every more over hybrid solutions.

I think I read about a company working on turbine solutions though, so maybe we'll see some examples pop up.

maybe the trucking industry holds the most promise for the turbine as part of hybrid hydrogen turbine electric powertrains in prime movers.
as the energy density of today's battery technology is still not suitable for long-distance trucking with a full payload.
 when there is no time for sitting idle charging batteries.

[PChi]

Rover also built a few gas turbine powered passenger cars and entered the Rover BRM in the Le Mans 24 hour race back in the sixties. But fuel consumption was too high along with the cost of the turbine doomed the project.
If the problem of separating hydrogen economically is solved then a fuel cell car seems to be the best solution. There are a few filling stations in the UK and have seen a Toyota Mirai on the M25.

[coppice]

Rover also built a few gas turbine powered passenger cars and entered the Rover BRM in the Le Mans 24 hour race back in the sixties. But fuel consumption was too high along with the cost of the turbine doomed the project.
If the problem of separating hydrogen economically is solved then a fuel cell car seems to be the best solution. There are a few filling stations in the UK and have seen a Toyota Mirai on the M25.

Leyland also built some gas turbine powered trucks, which actually went to market. I don't know if that was a separate effort from the Rover cars, or if the same engineering team was involved in both. I don't think a gas turbine powered Rover car was ever sold to the public.

[ajb]

Really the only advantage that gas turbines have over reciprocating engines is in power to weight and power to size ratios, which is why they're used in aircraft.  They don't throttle well, and suffer quite severe thermal cycling at startup/shutdown, so they're not a great fit for mechanical coupling (where throttle range is required), OR battery series hybrid arrangements (where you want to be able to cycle the engine on/off at will).  I suspect the startup fuel penalty is also much more severe with a gas turbine. 

The real efficiency advantage of gas turbines is in fixed plants where you can add a steam turbine cycle driven by the tremendous waste heat output of the gas turbine, and often still have some heat left over for other uses.  That can take the efficiency from ~40% to ~60%, but really kills the power to weight/size advantage.

[dr.diesel]

I have seen that car in person running, no ride unfortunately.

It was surprisingly smooth, demonstrated by placing a nickel on the engine, on edge, while running.

[Mr. Scram]

I have seen that car in person running, no ride unfortunately.

It was surprisingly smooth, demonstrated by placing a nickel on the engine, on edge, while running.

I would expect a turbine engine to be smooth, smoother than a piston engine with mass flopping back and forth in every direction imaginable.

[SeanB]

Mr Royce and Mr Rolls would beg to differ on pistons not being smooth, they did make engines that were almost vibration free.

[CatalinaWOW]

I have seen that car in person running, no ride unfortunately.

It was surprisingly smooth, demonstrated by placing a nickel on the engine, on edge, while running.

And the next time my vehicle spec calls for balancing a nickel on the powerplant I will call for a turbine.  Otherwise a little balancing and a low pass filter between the engine and the vehicle (a rubber motor mount) solves the problem for the passengers.  In many modern cars it is difficult to tell if the engine is running.

The best evidence that there is no pony in this pen is that the portable generator market hasn't jumped on small gas turbines.  That market places a premium on quiet and is still dominated by reciprocating engines.

[Cyberdragon]

I have seen that car in person running, no ride unfortunately.

It was surprisingly smooth, demonstrated by placing a nickel on the engine, on edge, while running.

And the next time my vehicle spec calls for balancing a nickel on the powerplant I will call for a turbine.  Otherwise a little balancing and a low pass filter between the engine and the vehicle (a rubber motor mount) solves the problem for the passengers.  In many modern cars it is difficult to tell if the engine is running.

The best evidence that there is no pony in this pen is that the portable generator market hasn't jumped on small gas turbines.  That market places a premium on quiet and is still dominated by reciprocating engines.

They exist...

http://www.gasturbineworld.co.uk/dynajetmicroturbine.html

http://www.bladonjets.com (note, trailer sized gensets it seems, not small portables)

EDIT: the above machine is a weak pile of crap, but the bottom is more promising.

[CatalinaWOW]

So one company has failed in the market, and the other is transportable, not portable. 

There are many, many examples of turbine generator sets in 12kW and above sizes.  I was surprised to even see your failed product in the 500W to 3kW market.

Just for reference, the charging engine in the Chevy Volt is rated at about 80 HP, or about 60kW.  The trailer doesn't scale well to the application.

[Alex Eisenhut]

My favorite 1960s turbine car.



As you can see with the three-pipe arrangement, it has a waste gate, it has no throttling issues. It just jams the gate shut and you have 100% torque as quickly as gas is generated.

A nice French video



Basically he's saying how great it is.

[james_s]

Really the only advantage that gas turbines have over reciprocating engines is in power to weight and power to size ratios, which is why they're used in aircraft.  They don't throttle well, and suffer quite severe thermal cycling at startup/shutdown, so they're not a great fit for mechanical coupling (where throttle range is required), OR battery series hybrid arrangements (where you want to be able to cycle the engine on/off at will).  I suspect the startup fuel penalty is also much more severe with a gas turbine. 

The real efficiency advantage of gas turbines is in fixed plants where you can add a steam turbine cycle driven by the tremendous waste heat output of the gas turbine, and often still have some heat left over for other uses.  That can take the efficiency from ~40% to ~60%, but really kills the power to weight/size advantage.

An even bigger issue is reliability. Look at the TBO of a modern piston aircraft engine and compare that to a modern gas turbine, the turbine can run far longer between overhauls. Reliability is improved too, back in the piston engine era it was not at all unusual to have to shut down an engine in flight, today it is extremely rare.

Despite that I would still happily pay a premium to fly on something like a DC-3 or a Lockheed Constellation over a boring but dependable 737. From a fuel efficiency standpoint the old piston engines are still more efficient than turbines and that's what really did them in for land use. There was quite a bit of development back in the 60s, the Chrysler turbine car was one of them, there were several turbine powered trains, there are turbine powered ships. All had one fatal flaw and that is poor fuel efficiency. Turbines are used when you need tons of power that can run for hours on end in a relatively compact space. For everything else, piston engines still reign.

[Mr. Scram]

An even bigger issue is reliability. Look at the TBO of a modern piston aircraft engine and compare that to a modern gas turbine, the turbine can run far longer between overhauls. Reliability is improved too, back in the piston engine era it was not at all unusual to have to shut down an engine in flight, today it is extremely rare.

Despite that I would still happily pay a premium to fly on something like a DC-3 or a Lockheed Constellation over a boring but dependable 737. From a fuel efficiency standpoint the old piston engines are still more efficient than turbines and that's what really did them in for land use. There was quite a bit of development back in the 60s, the Chrysler turbine car was one of them, there were several turbine powered trains, there are turbine powered ships. All had one fatal flaw and that is poor fuel efficiency. Turbines are used when you need tons of power that can run for hours on end in a relatively compact space. For everything else, piston engines still reign.

The problem with piston engined aircraft is that you'll typically have a propeller attached to it. This makes for a rather ride when compared to turbine powered craft. It's fun to fly as a novelty, but no way I would want to traverse the world that way. Turbine aircraft are ridiculously comfortable, even without taking the fact they're aluminium and composite tubes hurtling around a thin -50 Celsius atmosphere near the speed of sound into account.

[coppice]

The problem with piston engined aircraft is that you'll typically have a propeller attached to it. This makes for a rather ride when compared to turbine powered craft. It's fun to fly as a novelty, but no way I would want to traverse the world that way. Turbine aircraft are ridiculously comfortable, even without taking the fact they're aluminium and composite tubes hurtling around a thin -50 Celsius atmosphere near the speed of sound into account.

Modern propeller aircraft above a fairly small size are all powered by gas turbines. Modern propellers still can't get these aircraft quite as quiet and smooth as a high bypass ducted fan, but they are pretty reasonable, and offer the same reliability as a high bypass ducted fan.

[CatalinaWOW]

Turbine engines were used very successfully in Indy car racing for a while.  The power to weight ratio and reliability served them in good stead.  Since Indy racing is not an unlimited race (limits on engines, car size and so on are placed to make them competitive) rules were promptly put into place to limit area of the air intake.  After a couple of years of fiddling with these rules the turbines were brought into line with the piston engines.  What really drove turbines out of these races was when strict limits on total fuel usage were added.   The turbines just couldn't compete.

[altmangf]

This book has a lot of information on the Chrysler program. A good read.

The cost of materials which could survive the high temperatures in the turbine were a significant factor in program’s termination. Other factors were political considerations related to the bailout of Chrysler, the cost of the program, and the new emissions standards being phased in during the late 1970’s.

TL;DR The engines were very expensive to build, had poor fuel economy, didn’t meet emissions standards, and Chrylser ran out of money.

At least, that’s according to the book.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[babysitter]

Was this here already?



(From a horn and siren collector)

[stj]

the concept would be better suited to a bus or coach.
constantly in use, and a heat exchanger could heat the interior.

another use is trains.
russia has some new trains for arctic use that re-purpose jet turbines from supersonic bombers.
i imagine there is nobody around to compain about the noise!!

[SkyMaster]

The problem with piston engined aircraft is that you'll typically have a propeller attached to it. This makes for a rather ride when compared to turbine powered craft. It's fun to fly as a novelty, but no way I would want to traverse the world that way. Turbine aircraft are ridiculously comfortable, even without taking the fact they're aluminium and composite tubes hurtling around a thin -50 Celsius atmosphere near the speed of sound into account.

What is wrong with propellers?

Turboprop aircraft are turbine powered. Turboprop aircraft have turbine engines connected to propellers.

Bombardier's Q series (based on the Crash 8 ) and ATR are still very popular. The King Air is still popular, and was introduced in the '60s.

The first jet airliner were "pure jet" (or low bypass), they are all now equipped with high bypass engine (it is a very large "propeller" hidden inside an enclosure).

We all know that Joe Everybody is afraid when he sees an aircraft mechanic opening an engine cowl door on the aircraft he is sitting in. The same Joe Everybody probably feel safer when he does not see any propeller turning.


Yes, jet airliner fly higher and faster, but turboprop are more fuel efficient.


 

[Mr. Scram]

What is wrong with propellers?

Turboprop aircraft are turbine powered. Turboprop aircraft have turbine engines connected to propellers.

Bombardier's Q series (based on the Crash 8 ) and ATR are still very popular. The King Air is still popular, and was introduced in the '60s.

The first jet airliner were "pure jet" (or low bypass), they are all now equipped with high bypass engine (it is a very large "propeller" hidden inside an enclosure).

We all know that Joe Everybody is afraid when he sees an aircraft mechanic opening an engine cowl door on the aircraft he is sitting in. The same Joe Everybody probably feel safer when he does not see any propeller turning.


Yes, jet airliner fly higher and faster, but turboprop are more fuel efficient.


 

What's wrong with them? They're shaky and much less comfortable for passengers as a result of it. I remember the dismay of someone who got to ride on a propeller driven airliner first the first time. He didn't enjoy that very much at all. We're not even talking about the bigger probability of turbulence at lower altitudes.

Also, the fuel economy thing is a bit more complicated. I think that has been explained quite well in the link below.

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/1814/which-engine-is-more-efficient-between-turboprop-vs-jet

[coppice]

What's wrong with them? They're shaky and much less comfortable for passengers as a result of it. I remember the dismay of someone who got to ride on a propeller driven airliner first the first time. He didn't enjoy that very much at all. We're not even talking about the bigger probability of turbulence at lower altitudes.

In my experience, the only thing less comfortable about turbo-props is they are made for short flights, so the operators try to get away with packing the passengers in real tight. If you try a turbo-prop laid out for more comfortable flying they are fine. Its true that lower altitudes can be more bumpy, but if you operate a jet on the same route as a short hop turbo-prop it has to operate at a similar altitude to the turbo-prop. It just doesn't have time to get up to really high altitudes. It just goes up for half the flight, then starts heading down.

I used to frequently use a route which is served by a 737 on some days, and by an ATR42 on others. The only real difference in comfort was from the more cramped seat in the ATR42.