>1944 Mustang >1720HP V12 >2018 Mustang >460HP

>not driving the lexus with an airplane engine
defend this

>>17680062
That Mustang was supercharged.

>P-51D turn radius
>883 ft
>2017 Mustang GT turn radius
>18 ft
Planefags will never recover

>>17680088
Yeah, what's your shitty car's top speed? btfo

>>17680088
>P-51D
>6g turns
>Mustang
>1g turns
Absolutely BTFO

>1944 mustang 3600ft/minute
>2018 mustang 0ft/minute
what the actual fuck?

>>17680062
Why all the Nazi signs on the side?

>>17680128
Thats how many germanic niggers he shot down.

>>17680135
because he strafed five horses and landed a shot on a parked bf 109

>>17680128
410,757,864,530 DEAD KRAUTS

>>17680099
>tfw he doesn't have a Rolls Royce designed engine in his Mustang

>>17680128
He killed evil air nazis so you can live in a free country. You should pay homage to this hero you altright troll

File: 1447615351565.gif (2MB, 659x609px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 659x609px

>>17680147
>mfw dead krauts

File: snarling-or-laughing-cheetah-bab0xh.jpg (74KB, 640x447px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 640x447px

>>17680062
>27 liters
>1720 up
>63hp/L

>5.0
>460 hp
>92 hp/L

Tfw plane fags can't into engineering so badly that they can't break 70hp/L with forced induction

>>17680198
>70 year old engine is more reliable and nearly as efficient as a new car
o i am laffin

File: 1453761345554.jpg (30KB, 570x574px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 570x574px

>tfw the mustang will never have a V12 again
there was a time when V8 mustang fags were the displacelets

File: 27135-004-AAE5D4FF.jpg (17KB, 413x300px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 413x300px

>>17680062
>1943 Mitsubishi
>1130hp
>2017 Mitsubishi
>78hp

File: IMG_20170729_145708.jpg (3MB, 4640x2610px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4640x2610px

>not putting airplane engines in boats

File: 1497778627562.jpg (122KB, 1024x737px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 1024x737px

>>17680229

File: before after harris.jpg (300KB, 1280x670px) Image search: [Google]

300KB, 1280x670px

>>17680147
I AM BOMBERMAN

File: IMG_5400.jpg (273KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 1280x853px

>>17680229
>2018 Mitsubishi
>0hp
That car brand is gonna be ded soon. Hyundai/Kia already stole their whole demographic.

On another note, I wish the turbojet/fan/shaft was never developed, or at least never put in aircraft because it would be cool as hell to see current fighter planes with big ass piston engines. Imagine Skunkworks working with piston (or dorito!) engines. It probably would have helped forced injection develop a whole lot more and the turbocharging systems we have in cars today would be much more advanced.

smells like nigger in here

>>17680287
>Turbojets should never have been
>Our turbo technology would be so much more advanced!

I think you have it the other way around. Turbines should have been put into cars. Chrysler figured out the exhaust issue in the 60's. Lag and other things could've been ironed out in the following decades.

File: IMG_5401.jpg (82KB, 500x332px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 500x332px

>>17680291
Where? Get him!

>>17680314
I was just talking about that the other day. If the tech was there, Toyota could figure out a way to build turbines with such tight tolerances for a reasonable price.

Turbines are compact for the power they produce so I thought it would be cool to have a turboshaft running a generator and then batteries to store the power until needed.

You wouldn't need a full battery pack either, just enough for maybe a couple miles of reserve power and the turbine always charging them so it can run at a steady speed even for city driving.

>>17680344
Why not run the turbine shaft into a 9000 speed transmission?

>>17680356
CVT!!!!

File: 930fae855ffec20c1e93789d11e7e403a1ef9fec_hq.gif (370KB, 400x273px) Image search: [Google]

370KB, 400x273px

>>17680198
Power to weight>>>>>>>>>Power to displacement.
Weight is all that matters
Displacement is literally empty space
Who the fuck cares about displacement?
Displacement and weight do not correlate.
Idiots everywhere.

>>17680207
both of those are wrong la

>>17680198
not just forced induction
water methanol and lead as octane boosters

also they running at high altitude
so that 1720 hp is even less when the aircraft is in use

>>17680198
>specific output meme
>not hanging self for it.

>>17680568
allison v12 a shit

>not top mounting a 110,000hp turbine on a 3k civic

>>17680568
you know you need metal around the cylinder buddy
so the bigger the cylinder the more metal you will need
so you will have more mass

>>17680287
its soo dumb because mitsubishi helped them get started

>>17680677
I thought it used a rolls royce V12?

>>17680706
the later ones did

for me, it's the mk.2 Tempest

>>17680145
kek

>>17680062
Supercharged with 125 US octane (150 grade fuel) leaded gas vs 91 US unleaded naturally aspirated.
Oh and displacement is another thing

>>17680706
Only the D and later models

>>17680356
>>17680369
Turboprop planes do this, sorta. They spool up the turbines and do adjustments with propeller pitch.

>>17680876
Ehh, it's not quite the same. They run into the reduction gearbox and then basically spin at constant RPM and adjust the pitch. That would be hard to do with a car with stop and go. Well you could do a CVT with a torque converter or clutch but then you are still basically running at highway loads at stoplights.

That's why I thought the battery idea would be cool because while the car is stopped, the turbine would be charging the batteries. And then under acceleration, the car would draw more power than the turbine produces but it takes that from the battery. If there is lots of heavy acceleration and stopping and the batteries are running really low, crank the turbine up a bit. So the turbine can still change speeds, but it is more subtle because the battery is there to store excess energy or provide extra energy when needed.

Think of it like a big water tank with 5000 gal of water. You have a garden hose at the top filling it at a consitent medium rate, and then a fire hose draining it at the bottom. For short periods of time, like merging onto the highway, the fire hose is open full blast, but most of the time just cruising and not using much power, that fire hose is only open a tiny bit and the garden hose up top is still filling that tank about the same rate or faster.

So if you can somewhat predict what to set the garden hose at (turbine charging the batteries), you won't really have to change the pressure. The big water tank (batteries) will always have enough for those few times you need to open the fire hose (electric motors at wheels) full blast. And you could always turn the turbine up a bit for long drives at high speeds on the highway, but at least it would remain there for awhile and it's not constant large variations in throttle input like a piston engine in city driving which turbines aren't so good at.

Probably a terrible explanation, but I'm tired and have been funposting all day.

>>17680128
posts on /pol

>>17680677
It just lacks two stage supercharger, so not suitable high altitude missions
The Brits use the Allison mustangs as reconnaissance and ground attacker and they love it
It was due to the Brits' high regard, US army decided to make it a high altitude high speed fighter

File: 8c2001dc0ae29963132546e0b068fa2a.jpg (178KB, 1280x965px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 1280x965px

>>17680229
>2300HP
>literally double the power
Muscle > JDM

>>17681179
*gets out manoeuvred*

File: _DSC7750-L - Copy.jpg (165KB, 800x463px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 800x463px

>>17680683
Then explain why a dry, dressed FA20 2.0 liter weighs over 400 pounds... (in this photo, 493, you can subtract the Dolly weight of 13 lbs, and transmission weight, dry, of 78)
While a dressed 5.9 liter Lycoming IO-360 aircraft engine weighs 296, over 100 pounds lighter, at triple the displacement.
Stop basing your shit opinions on incorrect assumptions, you are a dumb piece of shit and this explanation was a waste of time.

>>17681179
holy shit look how many japs this madman rekt

>>17681199
>>"The Hellcat was a rugged aircraft that the Japanese found very hard to shoot down. Most Japanese aircraft, including the Zero, gained their great manoeuvrability at the expense of armour and resilience. Hellcat pilots reported that most Japanese aircraft they shot down either exploded or caught fire, while the Hellcat could take a great deal of damage and still stay in the air. Navy and Marine Corps Hellcats were credited with 5,156 enemy aircraft shot down (4,947 by carrier based aircraft), 75% of the Navy’s total. This gave them the outstanding kill to lose ratio of 19 to 1 in air to air combat (more were lost to anti-aircraft fire and accidents)."
Weaboos on suicide watch.

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_F6F_combat.html

>>17681232
>19 to 1
holy shit

>>17681199
*energy fights*
Nothin personal... kid...

>>17681199
*looks better*

File: 20616037_10214730495884456_1477368391531735877_o.png (197KB, 720x405px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 720x405px

>>17680074
this

File: Anime+content+always+gets+negative+thimbs+if+you+publish+it+_9535972af6e26e22787545627beaf170.gif (134KB, 267x200px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 267x200px

>>17680971
Are you still spreading bullshit tripfag?
>>17680344
>Turbines are compact for the power they produce so I thought it would be cool to have a turboshaft running a generator
They are hideously inefficient for that, and other low-power applications.
A standard RJ APU, like, say, a Hamilton-Sundstrand T-62T can spin a 400-amp, 28v generator...
That's 15 measly HP worth of electricity.
Producing this power, It burns 102 pounds of fuel an hour. That's 15 GALLONS of diesel per hour for 11 kilowatts. If you added more generators (and magical cooling) up to the maximum rated 95 shp, fuel consumption would increase significantly.
A piston diesel is more efficient in every way at low power - it's just heavier, and airplanes can't afford the extra weight. The efficiency crossover occurs at a power level beyond what would be practical in cars, and at an IAT below that found on the ground.
>>17680971
>They run into the reduction gearbox and then basically spin at constant RPM and adjust the pitch.
They don't run at a constant RPM. RPM varies with power setting, from ~76% at flight idle, to ~101% at full power.
In most applications, the gearbox runs on its own free turbine, independent from the gas generator turbine. This "power turbine" spins at a constant speed, determined by the output speed from the gearbox, and the torque delivery changes with gas generator speed. Except Garretts. Fuck Garretts.
>Well you could do a CVT with a torque converter or clutch but then you are still basically running at highway loads at stoplights.
You're completely wrong, based on the incorrect information from above. You can make it work without a CVT, with very little loss. I'd explain it if I thought you'd bother to read or understand.

>>17681232
>19:1 KD
Holy

>>17681232
>19:1 KD
moly

>>17681344
>inefficient for that

Yeah that's one of the things that was interesting when I was reading up on it, never realized how much more efficient they were as they got substantially larger.

>76% to 101%
That's a lot different than cars with like 5% to 100% w

Why so salty? Which tripfag wanted you to call him "stepdad"?

>>17681232
Dank

>>17681417
Thank you anon

>>17681179
>1944
>2300HP, 18 cylinders
>2016
>707HP, 8 cylinders
Where did America go wrong?

>>17681232
>>17681253
>>17681374
>>17681417

Dude i can only DREAM of that shit as a virtual pilot in Battle Field.

File: as-mustangP51.jpg (23KB, 358x450px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 358x450px

>>17680088
>he can only turn around 1 axis
lmao

File: 1391041623231.gif (1MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 640x360px

>he has to sit in his Mustang

>>17681199
Tetsuzō Iwamoto, Saburō Sakai
They all use energy fight style
Circling is for plebs

>>17681500
We can turn this into another anime sticker thread instead

File: top fuel dragster.jpg (325KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

325KB, 1920x1080px

>not having 10,000 hp
>not having to rebuild your motor after a pass on the drag strip

>>17681420
>76% to 101%
>That's a lot different than cars with like 5% to 100% w
Yes, but that's just the speed range.
Torque output does not vary linearly with speed the same way a recip does.
Torque output at minimum (ground) idle is practically zero so all you have to do is run a free power turbine, then primary reduction prior to a fairly standard high-stall torque converter, which you could run straight to the final drive without a transmission at all, as long as your primary reduction was appropriate.
The speed of your gas generator section is independent, and the torque is all that matters.
That means you can stop the car entirely and spin the gas generator section down to a minimum idle of somethwere in the 55% range, and the input torque to the stopped free power turbine would be practically nothing.
At idle speeds, you need to bleed off a substantial amount of compressor air to atmosphere, otherwise compressor stall. Idle fuel consumption is very high, making it further impractical.
>Why so salty?
Attaching a name to misinformation stated as fact, rather than disclaimed as supposition.

>>17681530
They don't even make full power for the whole run. Most of the cylinders are dieseling or not firing at all by the end of the run, due to literally destroying the plugs in the first three full-power seconds.

>>17681530
>Not running a Merlin / Griffon on 95% Nitromethane
Pathetic

>>17680242
That's metal as fuck

>>17681562
How much faster would they be if the engine could completely last for like 10 seconds?

>>17681608
The zero is actually made of wood

>>17681543
That's still why I think running em to batteries would be the way to go. Ofc it's going to be inefficient since it's a small turbine, but then you gotta factor that you're idling at 55% power. So you run it at a consistent speed like my water storage tank analogy and you're charging the batteries at idle and then under acceleration you could be using like 150% the power that the turbine-generator is producing but you're pulling the other 50% from the batteries. Then when you're cruising at a steady speed maybe using 80% of the power capacity, the turbine can keep running at 100% til those batteries are fully charged then could slow down to 80% power and it's not such a drastic change in the RPMs of the turbine and doesn't happen nearly as often as a typical car.

Because without something like that it just seems like you're wasting a ton unless you're cruising at high speeds or accelerating hard. With my theory, the turbine will be less powerful than the electric motors and battery. No 100% science right here, but maybe the turbine-generator only puts out 100kw, but when you need harder acceleration the batteries help provide 200kw to the electric motor.

If I had lots of small turbines and generators and electric motors and batteries, I would experiment in my garage and get back to you.

File: 1498388812689.jpg (56KB, 498x454px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 498x454px

>>17681253
Aside from durability and strength of armament it's mostly down to the US employing better tactics and training to strike at their enemies' biggest weakness.
For the Zero (and a fair number of the other planes they used) it was lack of power. Sure, it turned phenomenally and any lone US plane had no chance against it in a turnfight but this was overcome by simply:
1.making sure you're not alone
2.avoiding turnfighting
Using their own plane's superior power they could and would simply leave the japs wiggling around on the deck and pick them apart. Really not much you can do if your opponent is much faster and at a higher altitude.

Of course, performance is just one of many variables to take into account here, from combat numbers to maintenance to the actual type of aircraft and was it even in the air when "shot down". Raiding an island airfield is much easier than an aircraft carrier.

Also i saw Based Bomber Harris so this is now bomber thread.

File: IMG_2036.jpg (76KB, 527x768px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 527x768px

>their airplanes don't have Passion & Soul™
>they also don't have 18 cylinders

>>17681643
10 seconds...
I don't know but it would probably be horrifying, especially considering the ET's are already sub-4 seconds.
Cucked NHRA continues to pile on rules to try to stop the cars from getting too fast, and they keep getting faster anyway.
The trap speeds now compared to the late 80's are already terrifying.

File: 03781u_0.jpg (307KB, 1300x1081px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 1300x1081px

>1863 Mustang
>1hp

File: Tempest V (1).jpg (108KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 1024x768px

>1945 Hawker
>3,500 Horsepower
>2017 Hawker
>non existent
POPPET VALVES A SHIT, A SHIT!

>>17681681
>55% power
55% of rated RPM, not 55% power... More like 5% power - that's why I said the power curve does not match that of a piston engine, perhaps I should have been clearer.
> not such a drastic change in the RPMs of the turbine and doesn't happen nearly as often as a typical car
But turbines don't give a shit about drastic power changes... They can do it all day long... Plus, the airflow through the engine is sufficient to cool it, so no rad, just an oil cooler.
>water storage tank analogy
The analogy is fine, but the engineering isn't.
> With my theory, the turbine will be less powerful than the electric motors and battery.
Why? The more powerful the turbine, the more efficient it is, you identified that on your own. You gain nothing from making the turbine smaller.
Why suffer the conversion loss and the epic headache of cooling a huge generator, and carry around all the weight of the electrical system when straight turbine power is more efficient?
If you wanted what you are describing, a fairly standard gas hybrid would do much better.
>If I had lots of small turbines and generators and electric motors and batteries, I would experiment in my garage and get back to you.
You don't have to. I have lots of big turbines and I've already done all the math for your proposals back in college.
Pic related.

>>17681798
Post more.

>>17681798
How do i into airplane's

>>17681887
I'd prefer not to, most of them are immediately identifying, something I'd rather not do on 4chan... In fact, I've already taken that one down.
>>17681900
How do you mean? What would you like to do with airplanes, and where (generally) do you live?

>>17680128
Extra lives.

File: 1499566575194.gif (381KB, 260x317px) Image search: [Google]

381KB, 260x317px

>>17681928

>>17681720
>awd
>zero turn radius
How did they do it?

>>17681923
>I'd prefer not to, most of them are immediately identifying, something I'd rather not do on 4chan... In fact, I've already taken that one down.
What do you mean? is it identifying to who you are or is it revealing some top secret stuff at work?

>>17681954
Everyone in aviation (civil and mil) is on a paranoid-schzophrenic-tier hair trigger about the general public / the feds. Necessarily so.
I don't like imagining the questions that would be asked about my judgement if I started posting shit on the internet and it went full-circle.
Head down, off the radar = key to success.
People have been fired in many parts of aviation for sticking the wrong shit on their fagbook or cuntstagram

>>17681798
Lel, that pic was useless since it was gone so fast.

So the efficiency vs size thing, how fast does that change? Wasting all of that energy at idle would really be negated because the larger turbine would be that much more efficient?

Like let's think of a turbine that could fit under the hood of a car, something the size of a 4cyl engine vs something the size of a 6cly... powerplants of that size, how much more power would the one roughly 50% larger produce? Like twice the power? 5x the power?

>>17681954
He doesn't want to reveal his power level

>>17680865

B/C also used Packard/RR engines. Only the A (or "Mustang I" under british squadrons) used an Allison.

>>17681199

LOL

>Hellcat initiate Boom n Zoom
>Zero can't get away
>look at him run!!
>he can't equalize energy states
>look at the Zero panic!
>look and laugh!
>laughinggirls.jpg

File: F4U pair.jpg (2MB, 1870x1400px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1870x1400px

>>17680229
nice fuel tanks you got there
would be a shame if something were to happen to them

>>17682035

BASED Corsair
A
S
E
D

File: Packard_Merlin_V1650_7_2.jpg (1MB, 1600x1198px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1600x1198px

>>17680242
that wasn't a zero though, can't remember what nip plane it was though

>>17680706
Packard built using a RR design

>>17681994
>Lel, that pic was useless since it was gone so fast.
Yeah, I explained.
>So the efficiency vs size thing, how fast does that change?
Efficiency changes with IAT and with power output.
but basically, not fast enough to make it efficient or practical.
They're most efficient running flat-out, and least efficient at idle. (This is the big, insurmountable problem, because your car is almost never using 100% power)
They get more efficient as the max power increases.
Since we're stuck on the ground, the IAT problem can't be helped...
Little understood fact - they don't care about air density the way piston engines do, the increase in turbine engine efficiency with altitude is related to the increase in max temperature change. The max ITT is fixed, so the lower the IAT is, the larger the available temperature exchange, and the more available power from each unit of air mass, meaning you'll make more power at the same AFR, which means if you don't need the extra power, you can reduce the AFR, hence more efficiency.
So, on the ground at high temp, the efficiency sucks, but onto fitting...
These are the smallest engines above the piston / turbine efficiency crossover point that fit in a car.
You can fit a PT6A-34 in the same space an LS + T56 fits. It makes a maximum rated 750 SHP, and burns 300 lbs / hour at 75% power, sea level, 15 degrees c. It burns 125 lbs/hr at idle.
You can fit a PT6-66 in the same space, it has a maximum thermodynamic output at sea level of 1450 SHP, but is usually flat rated at 850 to 26000 Feet @ ISA. It burns 500 lbs / hr at sea level at 75% power.
So, this is way too much fuel and power for practical use, but they'd make fuck-awesome dragsters... So let's look at a smaller one.

File: Three Allisons.jpg (224KB, 1370x1028px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 1370x1028px

>mfw no tractor with triple V12's

>>17681720
>1HP = 750 watts
>a fit human can make over 1 horsepower during maximum exertion
>which means a horse makes several horsepower
???

>>17682112
A trail horse will peak at around 15hp or 1hp continuous.

>>17682103
Are Germans secret Americans at heart?

File: QuadAlJPEG1.jpg (144KB, 857x562px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 857x562px

>>17682103

>>17682134
Germany and Holland are really into tractor pulling which doesn't really make sense considering they drive 0.9l diesels.

>>17682134
everyone deep down inside like vulgar displays of horsepower
only ricers and weebs with 'muh hp/liter' hate fun

>>17682145
at the outbreak of ww1 around half of Americas population was of German descent

>>17682112
its a joke idiot

File: gunther.png (62KB, 623x697px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 623x697px

>>17682144
>10000 foot pounds of torque
yes

>>17680088
What's the rate of turn between the two though

>>17682097
>usually flat rated at 850
*due to gearbox limitations. 850 hp at any reasonable shaft speed is thousands of ft-lbs of torque...
So, now we've decided that they're only efficient at high power settings, and we can't or won't use most of the power most of the time, we have two options...
1. We can have a hideously underpowered econobox that uses 100% power during daily driving, and is still inefficient as shit...
2. We can run a turbine flat-out to charge batteries, but we're back out of efficiency territory and into massive fuel consumption APU-land.
The problem with option 2 is, what do you do when the batteries are charged? You can carry around hundreds of pounds of dead weight as a charging system / range booster for your EV... But unless you want to deal with massive idle fuel consumption, you can't really have it running as available supplementary power. And you can't start-stop on demand either, they don't start fast enough, and the starter duty cycle limitations are significantly limiting.
So, if you want an EV with onboard charging, you're better off with a diesel piston generator
If you want a hybrid system, you're better off with an existing gas hybrid system.

>>17682097
Seems like it would be a cooler thing to try in a train or OTR truck then. I mean you could gear it to run 70mph at 100% power and the truck or train would actually be doing that a good portion of the time.

How little fuel can you run em on just to maintain something like an idle? If you warm the things up, you think they could implement some shit like new cars that can shut off at red lights and start up as fast as you can take your foot off the brake?

See... bepis is actually open to learning if you aren't a cunt about it. I was an ME student for a minute before I absolutely hated it and left.

>>17682097
you forgot to mention that the gap between turbine blade and housing doesn't change with turbine size and that the ratio between blade and gap is a factor in efficiency.

>>17682177
Ehh, that answers the start thing. I know turbofans take a hot minute to get going. Just was wondering if there was any way to get around it.

What's the limitation? Heating and cooling cycles fuck with it?

>>17682181
That makes sense too. Whatever it is, a 1mm gap on a compressor with a 6" radius lets a lot more air thru comparitively than a 1mm gap on a compressor with a 6' radius.

>>17682177
>better off
*more efficient
I hope my brief posts answered your questions...

File: IMG_5313.jpg (1MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4032x3024px

>>17682206
Yeah so the only way we make somewhat efficient turboshaft cars is if they are all 1500SHP+. Got it.

I guess the Veyron will be the new mini van doin 50mph in the fast lane.

File: image.jpg (46KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 500x375px

>>17680074
But I do

>>17682181
There are many, many things I didn't mention, and you are correct, this is one of them.
>>17682179
>cooler thing to try in a train or OTR truck then
Probably.
>How little fuel can you run em on just to maintain something like an idle
A substantial proportion of full-power fuel consumption. Turbines to NOT like to idle.
>See... bepis is actually open to learning if you aren't a cunt about it
Ok, not all tripfags are assholes. It was not necessary for me to be a cunt about it.
>What's the limitation? Heating and cooling cycles fuck with it?
Heat dissipation in the starter-generator
Heat dissipation in the turbine housing, which affects max EGT during start. It only takes one hot start to fuck a turbine.
Lifespan concerns for the igniters & SG
Turbine wear. 99% of wear occurs during startup and shutdown. APU's aren't even tracked by operating hours, because it doesn't even matter, just cycles.

>>17682187
>>17682187
turbines are pretty much steady state machines that experience most of their fatigue stresses at turn on and turn off, hence you want to avoid turning them on/off in any kind of rapid manner.

>>17680147
DO IT AGAIN BOMBER HARRIS

>>17682224
Can't decide if I think that's FLL Terminal 1 or not.
Nah, strike that, it is.

>>17682250
Yeah I actually just heard that somewhere random as fuck about APUs and other turbines being limited by cycles and not actual hours. Strange. But I understand with those temps and I wouldn't want some brittle ass metal spinning around at those speeds anywhere near me.

>>17682251
But that's still why I originally said it would be cool to hook it straight to a generator and battery pack. Freight trains would probably be a better application. The battery packs' weight wouldn't be so bad and freight trains already use electric motors to drive the wheels, so just replace a 6000hp diesel motor with a 6000hp turbine?

>>17682084
>>17680242
That's a D3A1.

File: download (2).jpg (11KB, 275x183px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 275x183px

>>17680229
>1945 BMW 1500kw >2017 BMW 400kw >???????

>>17681562
>dieseling
Out here in the real world we call that compression ignition, or spark knock if it happens at the wrong time.

File: IMG_5317.jpg (1MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4032x3024px

>>17682304
Yeah and they just opened that whole new wing too.

>>17682315
i thought it was a ki something, can''t remember the numbers

>>17682112
Yup. The unit definition for horsepower was based off of the work one horse could perform over a 24hr period. In any given 24hr period, a horse spends maybe a third of that actually awake, and when working horses are usually teamed and alternate who is doing the work. A horse can put out upwards of 10 horsepower, but not for very long before it needs a rest.

>>17682324
Ah, good old Silver.
Surprised they're still around.
I have a Saab type.
Good plane, couldn't imagine flying one in the FL heat with no APU though.

>>17682311
>so just replace a 6000hp diesel motor with a 6000hp turbine?

diesel engines don't require inconel mono-crystalline blades and a couple of overpaid college boys to keep running.

>>17680287
Piston engines cannot come close to touching the power/weight ratio of gas turbine engines and be at all reliable. Not to mention gas turbines scale upwards far, far better; the largest piston engines that were developed in the 40's were immensely complicated to build and very maintenance intensive. Take the R4360 - 28 cylinders in four rows of seven, each with two spark plugs; if the engine wasn't started properly it would foul every single spark plug, and think about how long it would take to replace all those. Not to mention the complexity of the valve train, crankshaft, the oiling system, the intake and exhaust manifold...

With modern engineering those designs could probably put out 5000-6000hp and be reliable, meanwhile modern large turboprops can put out 12000+ without trying.

I understand the sentiment, but reality sez no.

File: tenor (1).gif (784KB, 498x280px) Image search: [Google]

784KB, 498x280px

>>17682388
>overpaid college boys
>overpaid
>over
>paid

>>17682423
At what point is it more cost/weight/power effective to build a turbine instead of a piston engine? Would the Viper be better off with a turbine than a 8.4L V10?

>>17680568
>no correlation between displacement and weight
get back to statistics class, kid

>>17682423
>I understand the sentiment
Which means you acknowledge it would be cool as fuck.
>if the engine wasn't started properly it would foul every single spark plug, and think about how long it would take to replace all those.
Meanwhile, If a turbine is started improperly, no problem! ... Wait, no, um, that's not right... Instead, the whole engine is usually completely destroyed...

>>17682450
Since we're going to bring up statistics class, Fuck you, graph displacement vs weight and find any correlation with a statistically acceptable R value.
They
Do
Not
Correlate

>>17682428
if you don't feel overpaid as an engineer you need to ask for a raise or work for a company with better work/life balance. i make well over 6 figures and do less than 15 hours of actual work a week. rest of my day is spent looking at car parts on amazon and shitposting from my phone.

>>17682482
>a statistically acceptable R value
if you ask a social scientist, thats like .25

>>17682375
Yeah they got bought and sold a bunch but they're still goin flying those little Saabs. If's funny watching them land all slow because then there's a bigass line of jets behind them. At least they just jump to the Bahamas and it's a short flight from there.

>>17682423
Speaking of that, why not turbines in big ships instead of the giant diesel engines? Just maintenance you think? Ships do seem to become pretty neglected over time so maybe that's a good thing.

>>17682442
Lel I don't think so unless you were running the thing at full throttle all the time and wanted 3x the horsepower.

>>17682487
What kind of engineer?

>>17682450
>>17682482
And read this while you're at it.
>>17681214
Wait, what? Suddenly it's inverse? But it's not always inverse?
Read:
They
Do
Not
Correlate
Whatsoever

>>17682497
Mechanical. I do HVAC.

>>17682498
There IS a correlation between displacement and weight, but there's so many other factors at play that that correlation doesn't mean much in the long run. A 2.0 liter engine would weigh roughly 1/3 as much as a 6.0L engine, if they were constructed similarly. In the example given, the Lycoming was designed with weight savings as the ultimate priority, while the FA20 was designed to keep production and maintenance costs low.

File: IMG_1713.png (757KB, 1044x784px) Image search: [Google]

757KB, 1044x784px

>>17681214
>>17682540
The Lycoming is also air cooled which makes a HUGE difference because the block and heads and everything are designed completely different.

>>17682540
> A 2.0 liter engine would weigh roughly 1/3 as much as a 6.0L engine
You're assuming it's linear, when it's not, because they don't fucking correlate.
Many of the parts have minimum weights which don't change at all with displacement.
The weight of many parts has nothing to do with displacement, and is affected significantly by layout... Crankshafts, for example.
The weight of still more parts is affected by engine format, and has nothing to do with displacement. Cylinder head format, cooling system format, etc.
Still more are affected by their material construction, which has nothing to do with displacement.
There are a few parts which necessarily change in weight due to displacement, but the list is short, and the changes are small, and outweighed by the weight factors listed above.

>>17682579
If you swapped one of these into a car would it just drive like a diesel? Would it be reliable as shit?

>>17682602
>if they were constructed similarly
You'd win more arguments if you actually read the whole post before replying. You fucking agreed with me.

>>17682630
Probably exactly the opposite. Aircraft engines are generally designed for peak power, not low-end torque. It might be reliable, but it definitely wouldn't be anything like a diesel.

>>17682630
Lots of torque. (350 ft lbs @2800 rpm)
Max rpm 2800.
Narrow power band.
So yes, kinda diesel-like.
>Would it be reliable as shit?
Probably not.

>>17682669
>thinking that a high, narrow power band is diesel-like
Literally the main selling point of a diesel is that the power band is fuckhueg and starts super-low.

>>17682669
>350ft-lbs out of 5.9 liters
>lots

>>17682666
>You'd win more arguments if you actually read the whole post before replying. You fucking agreed with me.
I didn't agree with you at all. An engine of identical construction with 1/3 displacement would not have 1/3 weight.
Read my whole post.
But I'll rephrase it for you...
They don't correlate in a linear way, even if construction is the same.
>Many of the parts have minimum weights which don't change at all with displacement.
>There are a few parts which necessarily change in weight due to displacement, but the list is short, and the changes are small.
So the io-360 weighs 297 lbs, the io-240 (continental) of identical construction, identical layout, should weigh 197 lbs (2/3 displacement, 2/3 weight, right?)
Except it fucking doesn't, it weighs 246 lbs

File: 1500085075125.gif (1MB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 500x281px

>>17682736
>>17682666

>>17682705
But it's also made to redline for hours at that power.

Go do that in the Chebby and see how it works out.

>>17682705
Notice the RPM.
Stock LS1 doesn't get there till 1000 RPM's later.
AND it's a 4 banger... 4 banger masterrace.

File: b17 with p51s.jpg (2MB, 3952x2576px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3952x2576px

posting more sexy mustangs

File: IMG_5173.jpg (73KB, 596x499px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 596x499px

>>17682833
They had a P-51 at the air show this spring, I was stoked.

I think H>W Bush had a P51 he named "The Barbra" after his wife.

File: __original_drawn_by_nano__7350debee1a7ca5a6caf5dbfd1063136.jpg (105KB, 555x799px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 555x799px

>>17682833

File: P-51.jpg (48KB, 800x344px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 800x344px

>>17682844
nice
last air show i watched that had a P51 fly by with an F22 but that was 8 or so years ago
i want to take my nephew to an air show in the near futures, i think he'd dig it

>>17682856
kill yourself pedo
>>>/a/

File: a26f7d0e6c7793bd50de06dbbecbb56f.jpg (182KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 640x480px

>ship v12
>100,000 hp at 102 rpm

>aston martin vantage
>563 hp at like 5000 or more RPM

uh, defend this??????

>>17682482
very few things are truly random. of course there is a correlation. get back to class.

>>17680062
It had meth injection aka "wartime emergency power"

>>17682505
HVAC techs/installers are not engineers unless you are from the UK I thought...

>>17682602
What so unless it's a linear line going through the fucking origin, then there's no correlation? Wow you get BTFO by math, don't you? A 2L engine can weight 9/10 as much as a 6L, and still have a very strong correlation. Just fyi, if you are going to claim that 2 things DO NOT CORRELATE, then you better make damn sure they are completely disjoint.

File: best dragon.jpg (180KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 640x480px

>>17682103
Is that all?

>>17683012
>V12

I didn't know V stood for Vinline.

>>17681150
Allisons in the P-38 had turbochargers. The lack of high altitude performance was unique to the single engined fighters.

>>17683049
You realize someone has to design and build those HVAC units before they're installed right?

>>17683049
They are completely disjointed.
The "correlation" can be either inverse or direct for the same displacement ratio, depending on the engines you choose to compare.
So they dont fucking correlate.
A correlation can't be both inverse and direct. That's not a correlation.
A 2l can weigh more than a 6L, and also less than a different 6L, because they
Don't
Fucking
Correlate

>>17682495
>>why not turbines in big ships instead of the giant diesel engines? Just maintenance you think?

Military ships actually do use large turbines, similar to the ones used for grid power generation but configured to run off of diesel fuel instead of natural gas (plus other changes). The big cargo ships use those giant marine diesels because the fuel they use is heavy bunker fuel, which is very thick and loaded with sulfur; the corrosive exhaust would ruin turbine blades while the large marine diesels can be engineered with corrosion resistant materials to handle it. Also, those marine diesels have thermal efficiencies topping 50%, while big gas turbines are around 40-43%.

>>17683079
its a 1 degree V!

File: Dornier_Pfeil2.jpg (305KB, 1920x809px) Image search: [Google]

305KB, 1920x809px

>>17680062
>1944 Dornier
>2x 2000hp V-12
>775km/h topspeed

>>17683049
much like the other anon, i prefer to be vague about my work because its so niche that i'm readily identifiable. i'd love to post pics of the stuff i do because some of it is pretty cool (pun intended) but IP is a bitch and i'd like to keep my job. HVAC is a nice one word description thats intuitive for most people to understand, but it is a supreme over simplification.

>>17681594
>not having a 24 cylinder H-block engine with 5500 hp at 50 psi of boost pressure

faggot

File: caacafe34e74d25718e52bbc2582667b.jpg (64KB, 480x279px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 480x279px

Blocks your path

File: MerlinStartup.jpg (303KB, 2048x1357px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 2048x1357px

>>17680062
>>1944 Mustang
>>1720HP V12
British engine, british engineering.
>>2018 Mustang
>>460HP V8
American engine, american 'engineering'.

File: d5c6cb176019e191a066146a062d568e.jpg (80KB, 801x498px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 801x498px

>>17684786
> Spitfire
> Not based Typhoon

Pleb taste anon

File: Loliplanes.jpg (132KB, 960x800px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 960x800px

>>17682856

>>17685064
Confirmed for never having heard a Spitfire, let alone the four engines of a Lancaster.

File: 11397.jpg (328KB, 1024x702px) Image search: [Google]

328KB, 1024x702px

>>17685722
>He fell for the Merlin-meme

WEAK

File: me262 not a fucking bomber.jpg (9KB, 510x272px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 510x272px

>piston cucks

>>17680128
How many innocent German live's he took

>>17685722
>anno 1940
>engine cant even run during negative G
>on a fucking plane
>has to get a woman who isnt even in the airforce to fix it

spitfires not even once.

File: 1502035814224.jpg (47KB, 327x303px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 327x303px

>>17680062
Kek

>>17683165
Stop trolling. You don't pick 2 points to find correlation, dummy. You need to sample a variety of data points. You are telling me that if you plotted say every modern car engine displacement vs weight, and put a line of best fit to it, it would be flat with no slope?

File: corr-zero.gif (2KB, 388x254px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 388x254px

>>17683165
I'll be nice since I now know I'm arguing with an idiot, but here's what NO CORRELATION looks like. Just because you can find a 2L engine that weights more than 6L doesn't mean displacement is not positively correlated with weight. We are talking about general trends in engines, not just 2 engines. If you do wanna just compare 2 engines, then of course there is a correlation (with R = 1).

I don't like using vague arguments like this... but just use common sense. A 100L engine would require more metal to make up the cylinders and crank/cam/everything else support, plus cooling, etc. than a 1L engine. Saying that there is not a positive correlation between displacement and engine block weight points to a clear lack of mental capacity. I feel stupid having been trolled so hard if you are trolling though. So well done.

>>17683488
Unless we're talking about ships that are big AND military. Those use nuclear reactors.

File: CORRELATION.jpg (13KB, 560x420px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 560x420px

>>17686518
>>17683165

I could only took the time to find a small sampling of bare block weights, but here you go. I used B18, B20, 4B11T, Ford Cyclone, Ford 351, Chevy Performance Small Block, LS1, VQ35DE. Correlation coefficient is 0.803. Suck me raw.

>>17680079
... and?

File: 8c0db45210bc89b0d91bead73422b392[1].jpg (3MB, 2500x2037px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2500x2037px

>Not running a 41 liter flat-12 2 stroke diesel running 90 psi boost

>>17680062
>literally the worst comparison.
That v12 merlin motor had 2 superchargers, which where actuated through elevation.
I.E. one was functional until a certain altitude, then the other, higher compressor came on to make up for the lack of oxygen. This is why mustang pilots were ill advised to dip in and out of certain levels of the atmosphere, it would reduce the lifespan of said system immensly.
This is terrible bait, but some knowledge should be shared regardless.

https://youtu.be/T5zTO6GU7qQ

>>17686138
>BMW powered.
Kek.
It is one of my favorite jets though. Right up there with the A-10, F-14 tomcat, and F4 Phantom.

>>17681688
The only acceptable radial engine also the best

File: drifting-ford-mustang-flip[1].jpg (137KB, 646x396px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 646x396px

>>17681491
>implying implications

>>17680062
This is a good shitpost.

File: 1501663787732.png (249KB, 248x459px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 248x459px

>>17686138
>BMW
>engine lasts 24 hours

File: hondajet.jpg (114KB, 1300x867px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1300x867px

Does it have VTEC?

File: S-IC_engines_and_Von_Braun.jpg (218KB, 824x1024px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 824x1024px

>Each turbopump alone more powerful then a modern fighter jet engine at full afterburner, its output used just for pumping kerosene and liquid oxygen into the main engine
Piston and jetfags BTFO forever

>>17689125
> Each rocket only used once, and then left to slam into the ocean

>>17680062
Impossible to defend

File: Xz3ppjuh.jpg (58KB, 450x472px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 450x472px

>>17687510
no, im sorry what the fuck is this

>>17680128
>the following
>>17686170
>>17681928

File: ducted fan diagram.gif (7KB, 475x315px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 475x315px

>>17683785
>>17680062
>>17680287
can someone explain to me why no one never used ducted propellers?
It's not advanced but It would've provided more thrust right? or am I wrong?
>in;b4 obstruction of view, they could have a rear facing prop like >>17683785

>>17689584
It is not efficient at a weight critical operation at high speed.

Keep in mind that planes in WW2 where flying at a speed where you have to calculate in compression a lot.
Some Me-262s have actualy been supersonic during a fast descent.

>>17689551
as i understand it...:
a low compression ratio flat12 with a mechanically coupled turbo. (turbo with 12 stage compressor, and 3 stage exhaust turbine).
>viscous damper
The turbo is coupled to the driveshaft by a slushbox.

>>17689589
the suthe fuck up

>>17689589
lemme get it straight, it uses half a jet engine as a Supercharger

>>17689589
also:
A jet just injects and ignites fuel in the compressed air chamber.

>>17689595
as far as i understand this drawing.. yes.
also my exhaust taught, see >>17689600 (Me)

>>17689588
>you have to calculate in compression a lot.
what do you mean by this?

>>17689605
Ram air intake actually ramming hard enough to generate boost.

>>17689605
There are effects getting relevant at high speeds wich change everything a lot.
Explaining them would take pretty long, but in short:
low speed aerodynamics =I= high speed aerodynamics

>>17680128
the amount of subhuman kr*uts this brave man took off this earth

>>17680147
life is a fuck

>>17689097
funny you should ask

https://youtu.be/XM9cXN5Bsng

>>17689615
>ahegao.gif

>>17682144
>Fiat Topolino
Be careful who you pick on in elementary school

>>17682487
this is what engineering students need to hear in order to make it through school

File: _cmuph.gif (914KB, 320x180px) Image search: [Google]

914KB, 320x180px

>>17687510
>>17689589

>>17682187
>>17682196
SAME FAG!

>>17680149
>Using a gravity fed carburetor that would make the engine stall under negative Gs.

Spitfire fags btfo

File: sides.jpg (26KB, 400x316px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 400x316px

>>17689874

>>17680736
based anon
tempest > all

File: 1502299047905.png (3MB, 2664x1452px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2664x1452px

>>17686138
>Jet cucks

>>17680062
>0-speed transmission
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

>>17690747
>what is prop pitch
Basically manual CVT for planes

File: Me-262 HG III.jpg (47KB, 800x566px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 800x566px

>>17690648
>705km/h topspeed
*laughs in supersonic*

>>17690776
>only exists on paper
>projected speeds

>>17690800
>earlier production models had been hitting the soud barrier regulary

>>17690811
>Me-262 HG III
>production

>Messerschmitt made no attempt to exceed the Mach 0.86 limit for the Me 262. After the war, the Royal Aircraft Establishment, at that time one of the leading institutions in high-speed research, re-tested the Me 262 to help with British attempts at exceeding Mach 1. The RAE achieved speeds of up to Mach 0.84 and confirmed the results from the Messerschmitt dive tests. The Soviets ran similar tests.

>>17690838
I was talking about the normal versions of the ME-262.

File: asdasda.jpg (87KB, 1398x647px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 1398x647px

>>17690859
>Messerschmitt made no attempt to exceed the Mach 0.86 limit for the Me 262.

it was faster than the P51D but nope

>>17680062

Airplane engines are easier to keep cool then a car engine.

>>17689551
WRX engine.

>>17689595
And an afterburner too.

>>17690878
Hans Guido Mundke did exceed the speed of sound with his ME-262 on a dive.
http://www.fliegerrevuex.aero/flog-die-me-262-wirklich-schneller-als-der-schall/

The 950km/h limit was just for safety reasons.

>>17690914
>claimed
also 1 pilot claiming he did it in a dive is far from your statement "hitting the soud barrier regulary"

>>17689595
Turbo-compound engine. The unholy lovechild of a piston engine, turbojet, and gas turbine, united in their quest for fuel efficiency.

In the end, it ended up cheaper to just use less efficient engines than deal with turbine AND piston mechanisms in the same engine.

>>17691028
>Turbo-compound engine
Not exactly, a turbo-compound uses a crankshaft driven supercharger and a exaus driven turbine on a viscous coupling conected to the crankshaft.

The Napier Nomad uses a turbocharger conected to the crankshaft, wich is a slightly different aproach.

We may see systems like these appear on cars in the future, but with electric motors and generators instead of viscous couplings and gearboxes.

File: IMG_20150629_153528.jpg (2MB, 4208x2368px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4208x2368px

>>17683012
ship engines are amazing, its like an entire building that is constantly running for weeks on end and will gladly do it for decades running the shittiest quality fuel you can imagine.

i had the chance to cross the Pacific on a 915' container ship a couple years ago and at one point they took us passengers down into the engine room for a tour.

>inline 10 two stroke diesel engine
>triple supercharged
>pneumatic starter
>3 back up engines the size of small locomotives
>75,000hp at 100rpm

the ship was already 17 years old and had plenty of life left in it. the engine room is surrounded by all the other systems needed to keep the ship running like sewage treatment, fuel filtration, air conditioning, water distillation, etc. with at least one spare of every single part of the engine in storage except the main drive shaft, plus cranes on the ceiling for lifting heavy parts.

File: I 16.gif (165KB, 640x396px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 640x396px

>>17691191
nice, sounds like a fun experience
i've been on a couple cruises and they always gave us a tour of the bridge but never the engine room

>>17691217
Is that silver thing a turbo?
Does that have veetack?

>>17691259
>Is that silver thing a turbo?
Yes.
>Does that have veetack?
No.

>>17690538
>same name & tripcode
>SAMEFAG!
No shit.

>>17691217
Should ask nicely for a tour, and see if you can get one. Surely an engineer will love to show off his pride and joy.

>>17689615
you talking Ram jets?
that's the engine that doesn't even work till you're well beyond supersonic right?

>>17689616
ohhh okay that i can understand that
any place i can learn more?

>>17692553
Aerodynamics course at your local university.

>>17684158
>implying a nitromethane griffon wouldn't make more power