Science How i belive a flying car could be built
- Thread starter Moach
- Start date
Moach
Crazy dude with a rocket
now, how's this for an engine?
i don't think they have working models - but concept-wise, this is pretty much like what i had in mind (or as close to it as i could find)...
so if you remember, when i suggested this little engine:
...i also mentioned that the rotor assembly is not supposed to be like that on a regular turbine (unlike what's depicted in the animation)
this "round engine" is pretty much what i imagined it should be like..... even down to the apparently patented non-flat shape of the piston faces, the only major difference in that i was using a rotating compressor... it didn't even occur to me that i could use the other side of the rotor itself for that :facepalm::lol:
i knew i had to be reinventing the wheel (obvious pun intended)
how is it that no-one brought this up before? it's such an ellegant design, very simple, no large reciprocating bits, few moving parts.... i'd say it's almost perfect for a flying car - by the looks of it, it seems it would be even more efficient than a wankel, no?
now i'm wondering over possible combined designs between my turbo-piston and the round engine....
we could have an engine with two or three pistons and a supercharger around a single axis.... the variable geometry of the independant combustion chamber would be perfect for efficient operation over different altitudes...
and by moving some features around, we can still attach three sets of those in tandem, so they could all drive the same axis, but each of them with it's own combustion chamber and in independent cycles - a very compact, lightweight, incredibly reliable and powerful engine
the most ingenious combination of turbine and piston i have ever seen :thumbup:
i don't think they have working models - but concept-wise, this is pretty much like what i had in mind (or as close to it as i could find)...
so if you remember, when i suggested this little engine:
...i also mentioned that the rotor assembly is not supposed to be like that on a regular turbine (unlike what's depicted in the animation)
this "round engine" is pretty much what i imagined it should be like..... even down to the apparently patented non-flat shape of the piston faces, the only major difference in that i was using a rotating compressor... it didn't even occur to me that i could use the other side of the rotor itself for that :facepalm::lol:
i knew i had to be reinventing the wheel (obvious pun intended)
how is it that no-one brought this up before? it's such an ellegant design, very simple, no large reciprocating bits, few moving parts.... i'd say it's almost perfect for a flying car - by the looks of it, it seems it would be even more efficient than a wankel, no?
now i'm wondering over possible combined designs between my turbo-piston and the round engine....
we could have an engine with two or three pistons and a supercharger around a single axis.... the variable geometry of the independant combustion chamber would be perfect for efficient operation over different altitudes...
and by moving some features around, we can still attach three sets of those in tandem, so they could all drive the same axis, but each of them with it's own combustion chamber and in independent cycles - a very compact, lightweight, incredibly reliable and powerful engine
the most ingenious combination of turbine and piston i have ever seen :thumbup:
Urwumpe
Not funny anymore
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2008
- Messages
- 38,965
- Reaction score
- 3,937
- Points
- 203
- Location
- Wolfsburg
- Preferred Pronouns
- Sire
Cough...axial compressor, many changes in flow direction, single radial turbine for producing power, carburetor instead of direct injection, a piston that does nothing at all except trying to increase compression slightly.
Of course nobody did design something like that. Because it is best of all ineffective technologies. You discarded all advantages of known engines designs for nothing.
Also, it is NOT more efficient than a wankel from the first sight, since a wankel should be able to have a higher compressions and better expansions than your design, thus a much better thermodynamic cycle.
Maybe you should read more about this one:
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure_volume_diagram"]Pressure volume diagram - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
Ghostrider
Donator
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2008
- Messages
- 3,606
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 78
- Location
- Right behind you - don't look!
Urwumpe, how on Earth (or around the Moon) could astronauts view nude pictures on the AGC? It would take some very lively imagination to convert base-8 numbers into pictures.
Sometimes it only take a number to fire the imagination, and the AGC can display a 69 with the best of 'em. :lol:
Moach
Crazy dude with a rocket
perhaps the link wasn't visible enough - i certainly did not mean my initial proposal for an engine - i meant the round engine
- i was wondering if perhaps THAT would be even more efficient than the wankel :hmm: - i am well aware that my initial concept is flawed in many ways...
this is the "round engine":
my idea was to use three of those in tandem over the same axis.... making a compact, yet modular engine
and perhaps exploit the area inside the "main disc" as a cooling blower or even as a supercharger
Last edited:
Wishbone
Clueless developer
Moach, your best bet is to shop around for available engine technologies, keeping note of thrust-to-weight, fuel efficiency, mass and dimensions (cost is negotiable 
)
Unless one is Thomas A. Edison, Wright bros and Albert E. combined in one person it is generally advisable to regard engine designers as the voice from Heaven.
Also keeping an edition of Roskam handy would help.
)Unless one is Thomas A. Edison, Wright bros and Albert E. combined in one person it is generally advisable to regard engine designers as the voice from Heaven.
Also keeping an edition of Roskam handy would help.
Moach
Crazy dude with a rocket
i've seen that, but it seems like it's just a concept, no? - there doesn't seem to be any technical data on it's performance as an engine (that i could find, that is)... :huh:
the "round engine" manufacturer's website has at least some calculated specs for expectable torque and HP, look:
and the variable-geometry combustion chamber seems very promising for anything that, you know... flies
they also make a point in noting that the engine is adaptable to suit various applications with optimal performance....
seems like a winner to me :tiphat:
Urwumpe
Not funny anymore
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2008
- Messages
- 38,965
- Reaction score
- 3,937
- Points
- 203
- Location
- Wolfsburg
- Preferred Pronouns
- Sire
Well, according to the manufacturer, the Buzzard fusion reactor was also close to break even...
Also, the data looks very fake to me, without some proper testing data, I wouldn't trust it.
As comparison:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Volkswagen_Group_petrol_engines#BUJ
Four times the compression ratio, half the power and 1/4 of the torque. at 72% of the displacement. Despite having a much better P-V cycle as possible with such a rotary engine.
Unless you use the engine only in battleshort mode, such performance data on such a engine design looks unrealistic to me. (Eg, if you let a tank engine operate at the theoretical peak power possible, the engine would self-destruct in 20 minutes, but deliver nearly three times the power)
Also, variable geometry chambers is a fix for a not existing problem. For aircraft, variable geometry compressors or superchargers are existing, and even these are often not used since the gain in performance is not worth the effort in general.
Don't forget: Just the mechanic power that you get by theoretical combustion is not what you can eventually use. A lot of power goes actually away in a real engine for lubrication, fuel pumping, cooling, support systems and electricity.
Also, the data looks very fake to me, without some proper testing data, I wouldn't trust it.
As comparison:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Volkswagen_Group_petrol_engines#BUJ
Four times the compression ratio, half the power and 1/4 of the torque. at 72% of the displacement. Despite having a much better P-V cycle as possible with such a rotary engine.
Unless you use the engine only in battleshort mode, such performance data on such a engine design looks unrealistic to me. (Eg, if you let a tank engine operate at the theoretical peak power possible, the engine would self-destruct in 20 minutes, but deliver nearly three times the power)
Also, variable geometry chambers is a fix for a not existing problem. For aircraft, variable geometry compressors or superchargers are existing, and even these are often not used since the gain in performance is not worth the effort in general.
Don't forget: Just the mechanic power that you get by theoretical combustion is not what you can eventually use. A lot of power goes actually away in a real engine for lubrication, fuel pumping, cooling, support systems and electricity.
Last edited:
