Any aircraft is going to be a series of compromises. I'm positive that there are pilots out there who would think this engine PERFECT for their mission requirements.
At Max TOT (WOT), the T62/150TP produces 80 ~90lbs of additional exhaust thrust, while the T62/100TP produces 40 to 50lbs of additional exhaust thrust. Obviously, this is in addition to the prop thrust produced. Of course, this additional jet exhaust thrust is only realized when the exhaust is directed to the rear of the aircraft. In a rotorcraft, this exhaust thrust can also be utilized for anti-torque purposes to reduce the anti-torque load required by the tail rotor.
If anyone is reading this and knows a little bit about engines what do you think about putting a turboprop engine into a car, I've been researching it for a couple months now and want other people's opinions on the idea. Its a daunting task but seems really fun since I'm into aviation but also cars. And if I was to do this would there be a specific engine I should use and a specific transmission because I want to have it be manual.
If you want to put a turboprop's turbine in a car, you should get a Solar T62T32, its basically this but an APU that outputs at 6000 rpm rather than about 1900 for turning a prop, then put the engine in the engine bay backwards after making sure the engine bay is big enough, route the intake through two cowls that pull in air from the grill or perhaps hood scoops, run the exhaust into a y-pipe to split it into 3 inch pipes and either route those into two turbocharger exhaust housings with their turbines mated to generators to recover energy that would otherwise have been wasted or just dump the exhaust straight into like 2 mufflers and resonators to make it less deafening. Then you gotta add the other bits that ran the APU into the car and program a throttle control that can ramp the turbine up and down in rpm according to how much you push down the gas pedal, then you gotta be very careful with the clutch when driving it so it doesn't overload the turbine. It would be best to try to put a torque converter in between the output shaft and the clutch housing on the gearbox, perhaps an NV4500 out of a first gen Silverado would do the trick, 5 speed and made to handle more than the 380 ft-lbs of torque from the big L96 engine, and the T62 won't make that much power since it only makes 150hp while the L96 made 360hp and their output shafts rev around the same, so the NV4500's 6.34-to-1 first gear will help any vehicle get going. The T62T32 costs about 11 grand in proper working APU form, and the NV4500 costs about 2 and a half grand from what I can tell, so if you have a bunch of money laying around and are a proper machinehead able and willing to do it, it can be done. Turboprop engines and helicopter engines are really good choices and have been used before to make jet cars, so its possible for sure. An for the exhaust size, the full turbine is about 21 inches in diameter, and according to the size of the exhaust outlet in comparison I'd say the exhaust diameter is around 8.5 inches, that can be pushed down to 4 inches over probably a foot of pipe to let the air accelerate and from there it can be split into two 3 inch pipes through a 4 inch y-pipe and two 4-to-3 inch adapters, and at that point its either to a pair of semi-truck turbo exhaust housings with their turbines driving generators to sap the energy out of the exhaust, or just right into a set of mufflers and resonators. The exhaust velocity of a jet engine is usually nearly mach speed, so 312 meters per second, the exhaust pulses of an internal combustion engine can run up to 125 meters per second, and so since a turboprop's exhaust accounts for maybe 15% of its thrust at the very maximum we can say at 8.5 inches outlet diameter that's around 47 meters per second, since velocity is a function of the cross sectional area, the 56.75 square inches of the 8.5 inch pipe down to the 12.57 of the 4 inch pipe results in 212.2 meters per second exhaust velocity, and that slow down to 119 meters per second after the y-pipe, so the 4 inch is too much of a restriction, so realistically 8.5 inches at the turbine outlet to a 4.5 inch y-pipe down to two 3 inch pipes and then the exhaust velocity is much more reasonable. A turboshaft is a compressor, so it can easily handle a certain amount of exhaust backpressure, so a gradual downsizing of the outlet to a smaller size is easily doable and should be no trouble, and from there two pairs of Apex Xlerator mufflers which would total around 300 bucks for four of them should quiet it right down to bearable levels instead of being so loud you need ear protection. A pair of 3 inch diameter resonators should also take care of some of the pitchy noise that gives you headaches too, but that'd run another 200 bucks for a pair of them, but I'd imagine much of the noise can be taken care of by, believe it or not, the turbocharger generator thingies should you choose to put them in, its one big reason the Chrysler Turbine was so quiet, since its rotary regenerators sapped much of the thermal energy out of the exhaust to preheat the intake for better fuel economy that the exhaust was left much quieter and far cooler. Holy shit I wrote a metric fck-tonne of words XD
Mark, as to the JFS100, it is a small "twin shaft" free turbine engine made by Garrett AiResearch that has much less HP than the requirements of a Cessna 152 at 1670 pounds gross… and especially at altitude and/or high OAT. That “scratch built” STOL is likely at or under 1000 pounds gross. The JFS100 only produces 90HP at sea level on a standard temp day (69ºF), and does not even come close to producing 500lbs/ft of Torque (see Torque formulas below). The JFS100 power level is generally sufficient for something like a Zenith CH701 at 1100lbs gross, but the JFS100 has many problems preventing "continuous operation" even at that power level. Just one of the problems is its small oil capacity. It was designed as a “Jet Fuel Starter” (hence, the “JFS” moniker), and was NOT designed for continuous operation. It has a very low volume oil system that would need to be substantially increased. Another serious problem is that to produce it's rated 90HP, it must be operated at 1400ºF TOT (Turbine Outlet Temp)… which it is normally limited to for only a few seconds of starter operation. For reliable "continuous operation", the TOT would need to be reduced to at or below 1200ºF (where our Hybrid turbines already operate continuously). At this lower operating temperature, the JFS100 could produce reliable continuous power only if the oil system was increased, but the power output would be reduced to at or below 70HP while at 1200ºF TOT (again, at sea level on a std temp day). Although, there is an even more serious problem. The JFS100 does NOT have a governed "N2" Power Turbine. This would cause the Power Turbine to be very difficult to "throttle" while under load, requiring the pilot / operator to change N1 (Gas Producer) throttle positions far too frequently to be an effective aircraft power plant.....that is IF the operator could even keep up with all the throttle changes. This is because the throttle position would seriously lag behind the power level required at any precise moment...requiring the engine to be CONSTANTLY throttled up and down causing sever PIO (Pilot Induced Oscillation). A "human throttle governor" would never be able to maintain a constant N2 power turbine RPM... and there is no easy and reliable answer to solve the ungoverned "N2" (free turbine) section either. Even if solved with some unknown “add-on” N2 Power Turbine governor, the JFS100's "continuous power level" would still be far too low for use in any Cessna. So, we suggest you avoid the JFS100 for your intended 152 project. The formula for Horsepower = Torque × RPM / 5252 The JFS100 is only rated for 90HP @ 6000RPM, not 100HP If you already know the rated HP @ RPM, total Torque is easily determined by the formula: T(lbs/ft) = 5252 (HP) / RPM Therefore: T = 5252 (90) / 6000 T = 472680 / 6000 T = 78.78 lbs/ft, which is nowhere near 500lbs/ft.
I had a JFS-100 that I was going to put in something. It had 0-Zero time since rebuild by the good ole' US national Guard and fully set up for turdoprop use and it was sweet as honey. I ended up selling it and buying a Beechcraft but I sure wish I had it back as the fun just planning my use of that engine in my own homebuilt was grand but one hot start or similar and all that $$$ is down the tubes so its now gone! For once i did the right thing and it turned into my biggest regret ever. To replace that little GEM will now cost 30-40K for say the new Polish turbine or similar. She was such a beauty just to look at and dream but you could not just tear it down to work on it without many special tools and special tranning and I think I "chickened out" not wanting to destroy such a great machine!. Man i miss her!!!!
My old JFS-100 , which has in the area of 100 HP but also 500+ flb of torque (typical of turbines) would more that enough for a 152 so similar. See Scott Ehin's scratch built STOL with the JFS pulling it. Very nice but they do burn 18-20 GPH of that "Nectar of the Gods" jet-A. Well worth the effort for the smell, smoothness, power etc of turbine power. The direct HP relationship between gas engines and turbines and especially electric do not hold up. Need to evaluate the toquue curve -vs- RPM to get better idea. Torque spins the prop!
@@rustie61 very nice I would love to put something like that in a zenith 750 stol...it would climb like a love sick angel Any info someone could look up on building the turbine you have set up? Thanks brother
Since 2001, the entire USA Military (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard) began “demilling" (destroying / crushing) main components as well as complete assemblies of all T62 turbine engine types, as well as hundreds of other turbine engines of all types (Allison, Lycoming, Solar, Sundstrand, Turbomach etc). Until new spares sources are located, these were the last units made.
@@rustie61 The engine was originally planned for the L6T designed by Emile Lucas as shown above. It has evolved into an original design 80% T6A Texan ll Trainer. It is a slow process since all of the parts are hand made.
That is a highly customized Thiokol 1402 snowcat. We use it for access to our mountain cabin in the winter. It was home for maintenance. Snowcats have to be maintained like airplanes because they can kill you. Just slower. You can see several videos of it on you tube. Search for "1402 IMP snowcat Sn 129" Some of the videos are from the previous owner.
The vehicle is a custom Thiokol 1402 snow cat we use for winter acces to our cabin. it was home for maintenance. The engine is slated for an 80% scale T6A Texan ll trainer that is under construction.
It would be really cool if you could run an engine like this off of two propane tanks like a B-B-Q grill then hook it up in the engine bay of a Lamborghini Kit-Car. I have a feeling it would be an experience worthy of the Bonneville Salt Flats in Utah. An experience like no other.
Well there’s a lot of thrust coming from turboprops it’s basically a jet engine but it usually has the exhaust section pointed downwards but he has it pointed out why I’m not sure of that
@@davecrupel2817 just the t62 without prop adapter is 140+lbs if you can build a complete aircraft around that with only 114lbs to meet part 103 I don't want to be anywhere near it.
@@goodenough_0815 All turboprops make use of the residual jet thrust aka PT6, TPE 331 etc. Thus the ESHP rating (Equivalent shaft horse power, which includes jet thrust and applies to turboprops.) Helicopters are rated in SHP and are unable to use the residual thrust so are rated at a lower power for the same engine.
