Alternative engines

[Greg Hermann]

>The problem is torque, which is what puts a resting object into motion... A
>turbine's torque is extremely low.
>Chrysler came out with a turbine powered car in 1962 or 1963... never made
>it into production and the test drivers said it took forever to get up to
>highway speed... Once it got up there though, they said it would accelerate
>pretty well.

This was more a matter of huge turbo lag than lack of power--the Howmet ,
turbine powered endurance race car of the late sixties used a manually
operated waste gate on a turbine, and had VERY impressive throttle
(actually waste gate) response. Not very fuel efficient, tho--even less so
than a conventional turbine at part load. Part load efficiency is the real
downfall of turbine engines.

Greg
>
>
>At 02:50 PM 4/22/99 -0400, you wrote:
>>In addition to alternative fuels what about laternative power sources. I
>>notices that an allison T63 turbine engine weighs about 150 lbs is about the
>>size of a 50 lb fire extinguisher and puts out a whopping 317 HP!! A GE T-700
>>which is a little shorter than a ford 5.0 engine cranks out 1,645 shaft
>>horsepower!!!!!!!!!!!!!! These engines will run on just about any liquid that
>>burns, such as diesel, unleaded, kerosene, and even used frying oil!. Has
>>anyone comntemplated the pro's and cons from such a conversion? I know these
>>engines can be found somewhat inexpensively from Government auctions..
>>
>>Scott
>
>===========================================================
>           David Cooley N5XMT           Internet: N5XMT at bellsouth.net
>     Packet: N5XMT at KQ4LO.#INT.NC.USA.NA   T.A.P.R. Member #7068
>   Sponges grow in the ocean... Wonder how deep it would be if they didn't?!
>===========================================================