Funny how jet engines don't truly produce "horsepower", but rather thrust. Shaft Horsepower is useless, it's thrust that you are interested in. (Coming from a AF person who worked on F-16's).

Charles

 

Ok, first of all...oh never mind.

Heh, are you going to get back to me on the pm i sent you about the 'track in tampa' thread?

 

Go tell that to all of the helicopter engines that have a spinning driveshaft coming out the back of the engine..lol, how else do they spin those rotors?? anyhow this is not true with turboshafts...they are commonly rated in hp because guess what..ding ding...they have an output shaft spinning at a given RPM and a given torque...that's HP my friend. I guess a very loose argument could be made saying no engine makes HP and that the cylinders just contain thrust and the piston turns it into torque..lol But yeah, in our pt-6s they turn 33,000 rpm from the free turbine into 2200 rpm through a gearbox and create about 1300 ft lbs int he process...and rated at 550 hp.

Anyhow...It appears that T-58 engine doesn't have the reduction gearbox built in, I think a T-53 would be a better choice, since it already comes set up to run 6500 rpm on the output.

The pt-6 used in the new T-6 texan II is upwards of 2200, or so I hear. (1100 hp, derated from 1710) For some reason the gauge cluster in the new texan reads percent torque instead of giving you actual torque like I am used to.

Al, You prolly have more hookups than me, what could we get a unairworthy turbine in running condition for, a few grand? Some people at my dads school int he early 70s built a dodge dart with an allison 250 hooked up to a hydraulic drive, needless to say it hauled ass.

 

this just in....


there is a HUGE difference between "jet" propulsion systems and Turbine Engines!!! RiceRocket having worked in the A.F. I am surprised you dont know this....

and on to cooler Turbine powered stuffs...

remember Art Arfon's "the green Monster" twin Turbine engined Unlimited class Tractor that used to be on the tractor pulling circuit!! if you say that turbien engiens are only good for narrow bands of power...then you never saw that beast run. he would basically engage the drive at just above idle then throttle up as the sled got moving. I remember watching it as a kid...i always like the flame show that they did before the run!!!

 

That's what I get for not "reading" the thread....

BTW, there are 2 turbine powered vehicles here in Tampa. Both are located off of Johns rd, by Glenns wheel polishing. One is inside a unit, while the other sits out side. The one that is outside is the ole "Joie Chitwood" Chevy pickup.

Charles

 

So why would the t-53 be better than the t-58? The 58 has a slightly greater output but the 53 is a little more compact, which might make it a bit difficult to repair or overhaul. This is only what i gathered through reading and i may be wrong.

And hooking up to a drivetrain...Could one use a torque tube mated with an auto from the c5 corvette. It seems pretty straight forward. I would just like to have more than two gears as in a powerglide.

 

The T-53 already comes with its own gearbox, to me that seems like it would be easier for a few applications. The T-53 having an axial compressor feeding a centrifugal compressor, which is a little more flexible as to when it makes power. I imagine they are both rugged engines, but again, the fact that the T-53 has the gearbox built in that you know can take the abusive power it can dish out is a bonus. I doubt a corvette torque tube could handle 35,000 rpm and 2000 ft lbs.

 

WTF is this Hybridss a jet mechanic now????

 

Damn, all i wanted is 1000hp with healthy tq for an awd set up in a 1500-2000lb car. I think that is plenty. How stout are they when it comes to ingesting water. Say i was going down the road in a torential downpour how would the engine cope with this? [i know the likelyhood of a downpour where we live ]


BTW...i thought a reduction gear would handle the high rpms. Maybe i just don't understand the concept of reduction gearing.