what's the power to weight ratio on that beast? 







http://www.freewebs.com/jet_beetle/

Wasnt that on "Monster Garage"?.....nah hang on the one I saw floated........almost

Wasn't that voted the #1 chick car? 

I don't think the third brake light is really all that necessary on that car. I would stay well back. No tailgating at all.

Why when people put jets on cars do that always go with plain jet thrust? Why not a turboshaft? where the jet thrust is converted into driveshaft power that can then be fed to the transmission? Like on turbine helicopters. Not good for stop and go traffic I'll admit but it'd make an amazing long distance vehicle.

Quote from: Mr.7 on March 06, 2006, 02:40:51 PM
Wasn't that voted the #1 chick car? 

I'd hit that! 

There is a company that builds a bike around and Allison C250.  Turbines for road vehicles are a dead end.  Even in marine, diesels hold their ground until very high power. 

Quote from: arcsecond on March 06, 2006, 02:54:23 PM
I don't think the third brake light is really all that necessary on that car. I would stay well back. No tailgating at all.

Why when people put jets on cars do that always go with plain jet thrust? Why not a turboshaft? where the jet thrust is converted into driveshaft power that can then be fed to the transmission? Like on turbine helicopters. Not good for stop and go traffic I'll admit but it'd make an amazing long distance vehicle.

My guess is that with all that torque going into the tranny, you could travel maybe a couple feet and then SNAP!  buh bye transmission.

They use their own tranny.  I think they were running around 400 HP.  I think there are some Hayabusa turbo set ups that run about the same power.  The problem with a turbine is the spin up time.  Think of the lag time of a turboed engine, then increase the moment of inertia of the engine by 20 or so times.  A turbine engine is just a giant turbo with the piston engine replaced by a burner can.  The C250 is a split shaft so the gas generator turbine (GGT) rpm is separate from the power turbine (PT).  The Howmet powered Lemans car had a similar package, it could go like hell in the straights, but it just couldn't get power up in the turns.  Ford put the hot flow through the PT first which provided a direct entry to the GGT.  This solved some idle and transient power conditions, but it just couldn't make it. 

Quote from: arcsecond on March 06, 2006, 02:54:23 PM
I don't think the third brake light is really all that necessary on that car. I would stay well back. No tailgating at all.

Why when people put jets on cars do that always go with plain jet thrust? Why not a turboshaft? where the jet thrust is converted into driveshaft power that can then be fed to the transmission? Like on turbine helicopters. Not good for stop and go traffic I'll admit but it'd make an amazing long distance vehicle.

Like Codger mentioned, there's a company making a motorcycle around a jet engine, a gas turbine.  Jay Leno owns one and and actually wrote a decent article on it for Popular Mechanics.  Appearantly it's completely gutless at low speeds, since the turboshaft has to spool up, and then it takes off.  Has a two-speed transmission, and redlines at 6600 RPM.  Gets sometihng like 5 mpg.

T-58's must be next to free these days considering all the idiots putting them in the ass ends of their cars.

CLICKY
nother clicky

Quote from: yamahonkawazuki on March 06, 2006, 09:49:59 PM
CLICKY
nother clicky

Hell!!  I'm not rejetting...  I'm buying this!!!

The Solar is an APU.  Unsuitable for much of anything other than a generator.  It has one power setting, WFO.  Also looks like it has a compressor problem.

The J-33 doesn't look like a bad deal as far as a dirt cheap turbine goes.  It's been overhauled, because the weight classes have been marked out and changed on some of the blades.  Obviously, it needs a teardown.  Hard to tell how much damage has been done to the fuel control though.  JFC's are very finicky, it doesn't take much dirt to screw up the works.

Quote from: GeeP on March 06, 2006, 11:42:55 PM
The Solar is an APU.  Unsuitable for much of anything other than a generator.  It has one power setting, WFO.  Also looks like it has a compressor problem.

The J-33 doesn't look like a bad deal as far as a dirt cheap turbine goes.  It's been overhauled, because the weight classes have been marked out and changed on some of the blades.  Obviously, it needs a teardown.  Hard to tell how much damage has been done to the fuel control though.  JFC's are very finicky, it doesn't take much dirt to screw up the works.

You f%$king amaze me with how much stuff you know.

I bet it still runs 15's...

I think GeeP is right, the size and IGV parts look a lot like a T-58.  A lot of them have ended up on pulling tractors. 
That would also explain the wasted flame on the top picture, they had to drop the entire PT section off the back end.  Depending on the model, that is one or two stages of expansion that miss the turbine.

Looks like they have the air intake inside the cockpit.  Never have to vacuum the rugs.

On the J-33 bypass the the controls and run it as a red handle.  You have to be light handed, but you still have a cheap jet.
Solars are even worse on engine efficiency, a few were messed with as light plane turboprops.  Double your fuel consumption, by the time you get a complete package, not much weight advantage.

I remember seeing a turboprop "retrofit" for a solar 60-series at Sun N Fun.  What a joke, the machining was terrible!  None of the edges were broken and it was obvious that the tooling they used to turn it was in need of sharpening.  Their design work was pretty terrible too.

The whole assembly consisted of a new compressor entry, a new T-wheel, and custom fuel control.  I think there were a few other mods, but I don't remember what.  Needless to say, with the quality of the compressor entry I was afraid to see the turbine.

The fuel control consisted of a microprocessor taking over the fuel scheduling calculations and driving a DC fuel pump at varying speeds with a variable frequency power supply.  Basically, the operational integrity of the entire engine rested on a $50 fuel pump.

I also recall that the fuel consumption was terrible at anything less than full takeoff.  Which isn't too suprising considering it was never designed to be throttled.

Does the Solar 60 run a single shaft or split shaft?

It's a single spool engine.  Most APU's are single spool, as I recall.

I wondered if they hung a PT off the end.  Most APUs are single spool since they should be constant speed.  AC power and compressed air.  I remember an older C130 config that had a single shaft with an extra compressor, for compressed air only.  The APU gen set was a turbine only gen set so they could pull air off the mains.  The Solar TP must have been set up as a variable speed engine.  Single spool is good if you go c-130 style and have a 100% rpm flight idle.  No spool up lag, poor in more fuel and the prop pitch governs the speed.

The worst thing on automotive turbine is that everyone uses minimal gears and the PT as a torque converter.  So you don't just have a GG spin up issue, you also have the PT starting from a dead stop.

Throttle by wire is interesting on the solar.  I have to admit that a variable speed pump is a unique control method.  Personally I wouldn't want a single turbine without dual pumps and a red handle throttle.

Have you been to the flyin in Galesburg?