The deep dark mysterious power turbine. A magic machine that seems to be the subject of eternal misunderstanding. Let's take a look at a few of them, and try to explain away a bit of the mystery.
Very interesting video. I work in a large utility plant at a big manufacturing site in new zealand. We run 4 solar mars 100 turbines and power turbines to make 10mw of power off each unit. We then use the hot gas to heat out boilers to make super heated steam to run site manufacturing process equipment as well as a large steam turbine to make more power. After the gas has been through the boilers we then use whats left of the heat to heat domestic hot water for use on site. By the time the gas from the gas turbine gets to the top of the exhaust stack its only about 90 deg. I am still amazed as to how powerful and reliable such a small piece of equipment can be.
Wow, the whole discussion of journal bearings and breakaway speed was really interesting. I thought everything involving gas turbines would use ball bearings.
Aircraft gas turbines and aero-derivative industrial/marine gas turbines exclusively (well, almost) use rolling element bearings. Having said this, the Marine Tyne that AgentJayZulu showed us recently just might have a plain journal 'steady' bearing somewhere on its LP shaft. Some free power turbines (such as the RT45 that AgentJayZulu has shown us here) for aero-derivative gas generators have plain bearings, because they have been designed on the 'heavyweight' principle for long life, possibly the lifetime of the installation. The gas generator may have to be repaired and overhauled several times during the life of the power turbine. There are purpose-designed free power turbines with rolling element bearings, but these are typically based on aero engine technology and principles. They may be based on the LP turbine of the turbofan from which they are derived and may even be an integral part of the engine change unit. An example of this is the R-R MT30 engine, as used in the Royal Navy's carriers and the US Navy's Zumwalt class destroyers.
When you got home, you probably discovered that the pretty picture you showed us was of an Industrial Spey with ..... an RT45 power turbine, produced by Cooper Industries of Mt Vernon, Ohio. As you surmised, the power turbine has two plain journal bearing, with the thrust taken by a tilting pad thrust bearing, known as a Michell bearing in the UK and a Salisbury bearing in the USA. Having been involved in the design of the power turbine for the Marine Olympus as a very young designer, my recollection is that the plain bearings of R-R's industrial and marine power turbines were supplied with oil while stationary, to provide a 'jacking' effect and reduce the breakaway torque needed on start-up. PS Tilting pad journal bearings are also available.
@@AgentJayZ Not surprisingly, I was immediately able to recognise the gas generator as an Industrial Spey. The design style of the power turbine appeared to be that of Cooper Industries, with whom I dealt when they were designing their power turbine for the Industrial RB211. I did google 'RT45 turbine' and soon found an ASME paper, authored by two Cooper Industries engineers, describing its development. I was gratified to see that they gave a credit to two of my former colleagues at R-R IMD.
Just like I learned everything about trees to make my hour upon hour of drives as a salesman into a great exploration instead of a mind numbing drive through green nothingness, your videos for the past decade (can it be that long!)have made me love the genius and beauty of things that have been not given the attention they should. You have made an airplane lover a person who loves turbine tech. AND I REALLY AM GLAD YOU HAVE DONE THIS!
It sounds like you settled on JayZulu. Said with such confidence at the intro! Now to watch the rest B) Edit: I'm an engineering student in thermo and aerodynamics this semester. Thanks for making these videos and explaining everything the way you do. It's really cool to read about this stuff in a textbook and hear about it in lecture and then come here to have it all come together and make sense. Every time I see a plane in the sky now I think about everything I've watched and learned and can't help but appreciate the engineering and understanding necessary to develop these incredible machines! Thanks :)
Good observation. It's rock show loud walking up to them , then you open the door (which can shut the unit down if not bypassed-oopsidaisy) ... Sound and blast/flame suppression is pretty much reserved for living quarters.
Excellent video but I think what most people have a hard time grasping is that the shaft that Is driven by the Tp is a separate shaft that runs through the center of the shaft that is part of the Ng. Most people don't really realize that they are 2 different parts of the engine coexisting, exchanging energy to produce torque to drive mechanical gear devices. In the case of ones used in Natural Gas fed powerplants there is a 2 for 1 in electricity creation. The Tp drives a generator and the waste heat is used to boil water and drive a steam turbine. In the oil industry the Solar power cells (turbines) produce electricity for the facility and other units drive the compressors and pumps to move produced Natural Gas and Oil.
Interesting that you're showing us power turbines I've heard you talk about them many times over the years and it's great to see you with a new backdrop 👍
Even though I have zero knowledge in the design, operation and maintenance of jet engines, I do find your videos fascinating and always informative. This one especially. ThX much AgentJayZ!!!
Wonderfully explained! Keep up the good work, AgentJayZ! In aerolab days back in school, some of us were either snoring or having terrific migraine headaches at this. Your videos are both cool and awesome. :)
Well I can honestly say I never had any questions or really cared about Gas Turbine power equipment. However since you took the time to present it and I am interested in anything mechanical it was a very interesting look into a world few of us see or perhaps even know about. My knowledge base is expanded a little and I am thankful for it. Cheers Mr. Zulu
Very interesting stuff. Honestly had no idea it worked like this, thanks for the explanation. This made me wonder, why two independent drive shafts? One reasonable explanation I found was "The advantage of the two-shaft gas turbine is that compressor and high-pressure turbine are driven at optimal speed for the respective power." In case anyone else wondered.
in one of the power plants i work there are two pratt & whitney ft8 swiftpacs. they have a GG mounted with a 4 stage PT. the output shaft of the pt is coupled with a 60 MVA generator. each PT generates 25 MVA of power wich is aproximated 33.500 Hp. really good machines, very reliable
What i found interesting was all of the external plumbing on the 116 PT . And the other units didnt have it or even seem like there were connnections for it on the others .What is it all used for ?
You rolled it gently buy it keep on rolling for few seconds with such a giant turbine that made me realize how precisely they are mounted 😱incredible engineering 👨🔧
haha, it's definitely a face-plam moment when someone says that a jet engine at full AB has 0 power or that an aircraft at 1000km/h has more power than one at 200km/h while at the same fuel flow.
I don't disagree that the no speed = no power logic is erroneous, and the fact that aircraft rapidly accelerate from stationary during take off should prove as much, but I feel you've swung to far the other way. There is a change in engine power output with input speed, pressures and temperature, and while variable intake ramps/output nozzles on some designs can help aircraft partly mitigate that, I'd be very surprised if any fast design like concord or a fighter jet makes equal stationary power (or the same efficiency, thus power per fuel flow) as it will at higher subsonic speeds. Likewise even if based on the same engine core, a stationary power plant for a ship or gas pipeline isn't really expecting to have its intake moving at hundreds of kilometers per hour, and will likely see deviation from its design specification should this be the case.
@@SheepInACart Actually, no matter how much force the engine exerts on the plane, if the plane remains stationary no energy (thus no power) is imparted to the plane. Though a lot of energy may be imparted to the surrounding air.
That debate is a result of unfortunate imprecise terminology. Of course a stationary jet engine produces power. Power is more or less entirely dependent on the rate of fuel burn. However, propulsive efficiency and therefore propulsive power are 0 in a stationary engine, because all of the energy is contained within the jet stream and none in the airframe. The faster the aircraft is moving, more of the energy is captured in the motion of the aircraft and less is "left behind" but the total is the same. Remember that the exhaust jet speed is relative to the engine. Say we have an engine with a 1000 m/s exhaust jet. If that aircraft is moving at say 500 m/s, the exhaust is still 1000 m/s relative to the aircraft, but only 500 m/s relative to a stationary observer on the ground. So a big chunk of the kinetic energy remains within the aircraft (~67%), but some is wasted in the remaining exhaust speed. An extreme hypothetical example: say the same aircraft is flying at 1000 m/s. In this case the aircraft's speed is the same as the exhaust speed relative to it. A stationary observer however would see a completely still jet exhaust relative to himself, so in this case all of the kinetic energy is captured by the aircraft. In other words, propulsive efficiency is 100% and all of the engine's power is propulsive power. But the total power is the same in both examples. The takeaway is that terminology maters. It is important to say whether we're talking about engine power or about propulsive power.
Again... You are using the term propulsive power as if it only applies to the aircraft. It also applies to the air being thrown backward. Bing Bang Boom.
G'day there, Agent Juliet Zebra, ("Zulu" became "Zebra" not long after WW-2..., at the same time when "Able" became "Alpha" & "Baker" became ""Bravo", and "George" became "Golf", and "Uncle" became "Uniform", and "June" became "Juliet", and "Freddy" became "Foxtrot"...; they didn't change quite everything in the "Radio-Telephone Phonetic Alphabet", but most of the British-isms became AmeriKan-isms. For some "reason"). Ah, ahem..., what you're calling a "Power Turbine" is, technically squeaking, a High-Temperature, DUCTED RAM-AIR TURBINE... (!). "Turbine" being a fancypants word which means "WINDMILL" It's otherwise described as a "ROTATING AEROFOIL ARRAY"... Which are mounted on a Shaft, and when subjected to a moving Gasflow (Windspeed..., Combustion-Products, Chemical Decomposition Products or Steam....), the carefully arrayed Aerofoils duly spin the Shaft on which they're mounted, thus extracting anything UP TO 59.3% of the Total Kinetic Energy (Thermal Plus Massflow/Velocity) which was contained within the moving Gasflow entering the Array (see Betz' Law Of Wind, to unpack that...). If one lived on Planet Fantasyland, whereinat a Turbine was able to extract ALL of the Energy from the Gasflow going into the Turbine..., then NO AIR could ever emerge from the Turbine's Eflux Orofice - because it wouldn't have sufficient Energy in it to move beyond the Trailing-Edges of the (mythically "100% Efficient") Turbine Blades...! I have no idea why some people claim to have trouble underconstumbling that the Turbine Stages of a Jet Engine are nothing but Fire-eating Windmills in a Duct, the output Shaft of which runs the "upstream" Air-Compressor Stages (Succesive "Multi-Bladed Fan-Type Propellers) stacked between Stator-Arrays inside a constrictive Annular Duct...) all blowing the Compressed-Air which they collectively produce - into a Ring of Tubular Fireboxes arranged to fart their Fiery Exhaust Gases onto the aforementioned Ducted Windmills, all stacked betwixt their own sets of Stator Vanes.... Totally simple to comprehend..., but they're a seriously tricky thing to design and fabricate, manufacture & then debug - to the point where they become actually sufficiently reliable as to be safe to sell - for other people to be allowed to operate. I'm glad that YOU know enough to work on the bloody things, because they're several steps above by abilities to twist Spanners. Such is Life, Have a good one... Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !
Zulu is used in the NATO and ICAO phonetic alphabets with which I am familiar. And a free power turbine is just another turbine. As I've just explained to another subscriber, the latest big aero-derivative industrial machines typically use the aerodynamics (if not the actual blading) of the LP turbine of the parent aero engine. Instead of driving a fan, the turbine is driving a generator. In some, the pressure rise of the fan is lost: in others it is replaced with extra stages on the LP compressor.
I have a question and I have looked around to see if you have already answered it, but I didn’t find anything. Do you know what causes the sound that is sometimes referred to as ‘burping’ or ‘honking range’ right after the fuel is ignited? A good example of this is the J65 in the A-4.
I puzzled on the plumbing surrounding one of the power turbine. Freezing the video at 27:23 I see the tubes are for cooling air. Is that air supplied by compressor bleed air from the engine (gas generator) or from a separate mechanical source?
what enery converion efficiency does power turbine like these in your video usually have? and is the increase in turbine diameter for more output torque?
Do you ever perform the preventative maintenance, restore, or rebuild power turbines? Seems like it would pretty similar to what you do with jet engines and gas generators.
I've worked on and around a few Power turbine "Agfa Sea?" with about the same thrust as 747 engine 8 mega Watt generator and older Kongsberg Gas Turbines that were fun to start ... big bangs .... fire balls into the sky lol.
The most powerful turboprop currently (however it's a single shaft design) is the Kuznetsov NK-12 with some massive 15k HP output 😎 Second in the row is the multi shaft design Europrop TP400-D6 with 11k HP 😁
If you're starting from scratch, then a comment box won't do. Any of the books I recommend in my video called "Books!" will explain the benefits of the turbofan over the turbojet, and bypass ratio is a big part of that. Alternately, reading a few pages that turn up from a search for "turbofan" will also be interesting reads.
J Zulu, some people will not be educated despite your best efforts. Know that there some of us who have learned much about turbines and their various configuration and applications from your channel. I was completely clueless about even the basic concept of these engines before I discovered your channel. While I would be a fool to pretend that I have anything more than a basic understanding of these wonders of human engineering it baffles me how anyone can imagine such enormous machines burning huge quantities of fuel and turning at many thousands of RPMs don't produce power. It seems they are misunderstanding the definition of the word. This may stem from willful or unintended ignorance. The second of those two you can correct. The first, not so much. Thanks once again for your amazing videos. By the way, have you begun your flight training?
I am curious , do these machines , power turbines and gas generators have "standard" flanges or are adapters used ? Also I read somewhere that Kawasaki industrial engines were designed to be industrial engines from the beginning and were better industrial engines as a result , what would be the possible differences between a dedicated industrial engine and a converted aero engine ?
I'll leave AgentJayZulu to answer you in more detail in a future video. However, suffice to say for the moment that "dedicated" industrial gas turbines are known by those of us who have been involved with aero-derivative machines as "heavyweight" gas turbines. Their engineering is more closely allied to that of steam turbines. Their structures and casings are altogether heavier, they have to be warmed up slowly and they cannot be started and run up to maximum power in two minutes or less.
I thoroughly enjoyed this video. Power turbines are my thing. I have experienced that 'vacant expression' when explaining to the less well educated what they are.
On that power turbine with the ball bearing (the ELM-11/16), what is that arrangement which looks a lot like a fuel injection manifold? I can only assume it's for lubrication since the power turbines with journal bearings don't have it. But it does look like an excessively complicated manifold just for lubricating a few bearings, so is it for something else, and if so what?
I wonder what the external piping on the Alst(h)om power turbine is. It kind of reminds me of the gaseous fuel distribution pipework on an LM1500 or similar, but with this being a power turbine that has no combustion going on in it, there is obviously no need for such. For an oil/lubrication system, it looks a bit too much to me, so what is it? Extra cooling?
Semi-related question that, in my somewhat limited reading on the subject, I have not yet come across a direct answer; other than cramming a ton of volume into a smaller area, is there a particular reason the turbine blades of a power turbine or even the general exhaust turbine blades aren't larger to contact as much of the power stream as possible?
By "larger," I assume you mean longer, ie, longer blades (and vanes). The design principle of most turbines in gas turbine engines is that the axial velocity of the gas through the turbine is kept approximately constant. The acceleration of the gas takes place in the circumferential direction. In simple terms, the blades (and vanes) are designed to be as long as they need to be to accord with this design principle. If, however, you mean wider, in terms of chord, then the blades are made no wider than they need to be to function aerodynamically. Make them any wider than necessary, then the turbine would become longer and heavier, which is hardly desirable in something powering an aircraft. Having said that, "heavyweight" industrial gas turbines do tend to have wider chord, lower aspect ratio blades (and vanes), not for aerodynamic reasons, but for robustness and longer life.
@@grahamj9101 Ah, that makes more sense. I didn't take into consideration the centrifugal forces. Initially what I was thinking was why they weren't longer to grab more of the air stream but presumed it was to funnel the gases onto the impulse face, i.e. concentrating the largest force on the smallest area. I did factor in rotational weight in design principle. Thank you for the clarification!
great in depth soliloquy [because the air-head no power people won't be able to comprehend],awesome. you always manage to enlighten even an olde pharte such as myself. couple of curiosities: at 10:00 in the background appears a partial engine in a frame at about 45 degree angle.. whats that? and at 21:45 whats the last engine in that lineup? and, why keep all those "junk" pieces of material if they are just "rusting away". thanks mr Zed lol
That's an afterburner assembly for a Spey, next to ABs for an F404 and a couple J79s. In the other yard, the far engine is J65 out of an A4 Skyhawk. A lot of the parts are stainless steel or titanium alloy. We have too much of this sort of surplus to store it all indoors, but we don't really want to scrap it completely.
A question: why there is the need of a separate power turbine and the power is not taken directly from the gas generator shaft? Is it because of efficiency? Is it to separate the torque user from the torque producer (but that could be done with a clutch)?
Some very large designs for electrical generation do that, but not the engines we deal with, because: 1)- Aeroderivative engine designs are derived from aircraft jet engine designs. It is relatively simple to convert a jet engine to a gas generator for use with a power turbine... you just take off the jet nozzle. Explained in this video. To make a single shaft engine with all exhaust energy converted to mechanical output would require a complete redesign of the turbine section, and this is the most expensive part of the entire design process.' 2) - After creating this new design, you would need to use a reduction gearbox on the output shaft, because engines in the 10 to 100MW class need to turn faster than 3600 rpm, which is the speed to make 60HzAC current. A reduction gearbox for a 25MW engine is very expensive, and is another source of loss, reducing efficiency. So: more expensive to design and build, saves on a power turbine, but needs a reduction gearbox, (which needs more maintenance than a PT), and the whole arrangement is less efficient.
Its a choice the designers make. Ball bearings last for years, and journal bearings can last longer in continuous service. I do not know the history of this unit.
@@imagiro1 Thanks, I went forward on video as I stopped when AJZ went for gas turbines. I see at 27:22 he did not stop at the diagram and explain the cooling. Is it compressor bleed air cooling or some external air cooling circuit?
Questions: Can you please talk about small gas turbine engines? Small, mini, micro and efficiencies/ inefficiencies. I have had a hard time finding small axial flow turbines and information about them. (examples like: FJ44, Williams F107 or F112) Is there an accessible small engine out there? I appreciated your T-58 rebuilding video series. Is that the best engine available in the
T58 is not a thrust engine. Smallest engine I have any knowledge of is the Garrett GTC85 in our start cart. I've never heard of a Williams falling into hobbyist or collector hands. The smaller they Get, the less efficient they are.
The compressor rotor needs to have rotational speed relative to the stators, so there needs to be a place somewhere with one part moving and one not. The clearance needs to be as small as possible at that interface, but the parts have to move.
one of the power turbines in the vid. had some lines around it, witch look like the fuel manifold lines on the jet engine, what are they for? water cooling for turbine guide vanes?
66,000 foot pounds. Mind Boggling. HP = Torque x RPM/5252. 30000 = 66000 (RPM/5252) So at 30,000 Hp the turbine rotor will be going 2387 RPM. Slower than I would have imagined. I was thinking the turbines ran at higher RPM with lower (relative) torque, but the opposite seems to be true. Unless I totally misunderstood one of the numbers. Just playing with the numbers trying to get a feel for it. BIG power. Thanks Agent Jay Zulu, interesting stuff.
Sounds about right for the turbofan. For electrical generation, it should go at 3000 or 3600. But then 30K is a bit light on the power. Our older models put out 34,800, and the newer ones are over 40.
Let's be clear about this: there's absolutely nothing new about sticking another turbine behind a turbojet. GE did it to the J79, back in the 1950s - but it was still an aircraft engine. The CJ805-23 had an aft fan, with the fan blades carried on the tips of the turbine blades. R-R also built and tested an aft fan version of the Avon, but the project was abandoned. However, Frank Whittle did it years before at the end of WWII, when he put an aft fan behind his W.2/700 engine, together with a reheat system, which he called his No.4 Augmentor. The engine, which was intended to power the Miles M.52 supersonic research aircraft, was ground run, before the whole project was cancelled by the government.
The CJ805-23 turned out to be such a success, that GE went all in and designed the TF39, and then the CF6, influenced by what was learned. Two things stand out: greater bypass ratio was better for thrust and fuel economy, and having the fan in front has the effect of supercharging the core. The elegant Spey had the fan in the right place, but could have used greater bypass ration. I think you were in the right place at the right time to see a lot of this evolution taking place.
@@AgentJayZ The Spey was turned into the Tay in the mid-1980s, which powered the Gulfstream IV. The engine had a single-stage fan with three booster stages. If you have a copy of 'The Jet Engine' (fifth edition), you will find a pretty picture of it on pages 72/73. Unfortunately, the decision to launch the Tay came rather late in the day. R-R Derby should have come up with higher bypass versions of both the Spey and Conway, long before they put all their eggs in the one basket of the RB211 (and Derby very nearly broke the whole basketful). If you look in the book at page 195, you will see a diagram of a flap blowing engine. This was a Spey-based project that we were playing with in design, not long after I moved to Bristol. As I recall, we were going to use the variable-pitch fan technology that had been tested and developed in the M45 SD-02. This was a 9:1 plus bypass ratio engine project that was tested at R-R Bristol in the mid/late-1970s. The big failure, as far as I was concerned, was not proceeding with the RB401 project at Bristol, because of lack of funding. This was a lovely little high bypass turbofan, intended to enter the small bizjet engine market, as a replacement for the Viper. I remember the project director saying, "There are three ways that we can finance this engine .....". I cut in before he could complete his sentence with, "Yeah, beg, borrow or steal!"
Correct. The stators smooth and guide the exit air of the gas generator to maximize the portion of the energy that is extracted with the turbine blades.
Stators take the velocity that has been gained by the air due to the action of the rotating compressor blades, and convert it to pressure. The Variable stators help manage the angle of attack of the compressor blades to avoid stalling the compressor. You may want to watch my video called Compressor Stall, and it's follow up video.
A question, if you run up an Gasgenerator whit out an Power turbine attached, up to its max RPM, does it consume the same amount of fuel as when a Power turbine is attached? Or how does the Gasgenerator reacts to a load change at the Power Turbine? Is there a feedback from PT to GG? whiteout And if an device produces only hot air it is in first line a heater, not an Engine. Engines extract a second type of Energie from the burning of the fuel, if only heats comes out it an furnace... And we dont speak from power output of an furnace instead its heat output. Best Regards have no pressure
A gas generator without a jet nozzle or a PT is working without a load, so it will reach its rpm limit while burning quite a bit less fuel than if it was loaded. Very similar to revving a car engine in neutral.
Wouldn't the fact that it takes significant amount of _power_ to just turn the compressor mean that the engine is obviously producing power when stationary?
There is an axial flow jet engine that produces a high velocity blast of gas which is ducted to a two stage, turbine motor, that converts the energy of the flowing gas into torque.
What is the extraction efficiency is for a free power turbine? I'm thinking along the lines of a car where there is a 20% power loss between the engine and wheels. I would guess that the power turbines have higher extraction efficiency, but I could be wrong.
It's surprising how small they are for how much power they push out. I was taking a look at some helicopter power plants and they are miniscule compared to for example a deltic engine of the same power. As for the "mechanical argument" get them to look at quantum mechanics. That deals with things that make a single atom look absolutely enormous never mind a molecule. IE the smallest as yet detected particles compared to an atom are almost the same ratio size wise as a human compared to the entire universe. IE the Planck Length is roughly 1.6E-35 meters. An atom is huge by comparison. IE Hydrogen atoms at room temp are about a ten million billion billion times bigger.
Nice video. I saw where steam turbines get sequentially larger (from the power source) to extract more power as the steam cools. These power extracting turbines don't do that. I wonder why the difference.
Very good video, agent Jay Z/Jay C :-) Haven't forgotten, that i promised a Danish flag, it will come! Anyway, i was watching a video yesterday, about the Antonov 225, with the double propellers, my question, the engines, behind the propellers, looks so small, compared to the giant airplane, how can these small engines make so much power, to lift more then 200 tonnes? Keep posting!
You are talking about the TU-95 Bear. The AN-225 uses six large turbofans. How can any turbine engine produce so much power for their size? They are genetically superior to piston engines! One of the ways in which they are superior is in the power to weight ratio. Only when tuned to extreme levels, and sacrificing most of their durability can piston engines even come close to the output of turbine engines... and even then they often exploit a turbine-powered supercharger to obtain those levels. In terms of power to weight, an F1 racing engine is about on par with a PT6 turboprop, but can it run for hundreds or even thousands of hours at max power before needing any work done? Don't even try to compare to industrial engines, which may run at 100% power for years non-stop.
@@AgentJayZ Its possible he may have been talking about the AN-22 which is owned by the same airline (Antonov Airlines)that operates the AN-225. Interestingly the AN-22 and the TU-95 utilise the same Kuznetsov NK-12 turboprop engines. Almost 15000 shaft horse power!
If both the gas generator and power turbine have rolling element bearings, then both will almost certainly use the same synthetic turbine oil (eg, ETO 2380). However, a power turbine with rolling element bearings might have a separate lub system (or a supplementary supply arrangement). It may have to continue turning when the gas generator is shut down, if, for instance, it is connected to an electrical generator that takes tens of minutes to run down, because of its large rotational mass. A power turbine with plain bearings will need a completely separate lub system, because it will require an altogether more viscous oil. However, it may well share this with the electrical generator it is driving.
A cheap wooden structure of an acre in area ( at least), that can handle our snow loads in winter? Such a thing does not exist. And, as anybody who's tried to use one knows, tarps are great at keeping moisture in, maximizing corrosion.
the U.S. Abrams tank use's a gas-turbo-shaft, 1500hp sounds a lot for propulsion but how long does it last thought they were mad to do, they say we were mad to put gun's in fuel tank ( English electric lightning interceptor ) I guess so... I would love my own jet engine, maybe fit to mobility cart, no thrust but sound great sound, I should like AgentJayZ more. I love all video's from this man, love the gas-turbo-jet, thanks for all
