Is it possible to build a (reciprocating) internal combustion engine supersonic car?
Is it possible to build a (reciprocating) internal combustion engine supersonic car?
James Peterson
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
m.youtube.com
twitter.com
Evan Cook
Doubt it otherwise it would of been built by now. ICE's don't have the top end grunt needed to go that fast which is why planes don't use them either.
The wheel driven record is held by a GM powered car.
Hudson Jones
perhaps
en.wikipedia.org
they had a speed target of 750km/h back in 1939, too bad it was never run.
Isaiah Perez
>439mph on 368cui
Should be supersonic running 642 cui or more, and tonnes of shops make them that size over the country
Samuel Rogers
Are you referring to that Saturn Ion?
Aiden Parker
>44.5 litre inverted v12
>3000 hp
NO REPLACEMENT FOR DISPLACEMENT
Charles Gutierrez
No. You'd need ridiculous amounts of engine to get up to that speed, so you'd be loading on more and more weight to get only a little faster. It'd even out fairly quickly, so there hasn't been a wheel-powered land speed record in decades.
There's a reason the convention is to pull the engines off a fighter jet one or two generations behind and stick them into a pointy car.
Even propellers can't go that fast; the fastest propeller-driven aircraft can't break the sound barrier, and it needs four fuckhuge engines and eight propellers to even get as fast as it does.
The crews and ground crews are all deaf, and it causes hearing damage in intercepting fighter pilots at altitude. Way high up where the air is thin, it still manages to produce that much sound.
Justin Peterson
m.youtube.com
not under its own power
Hunter Price
The problem comes down to the ingestion of supersonic airflows by the engine, or in the case of prop driven planes, that the tips of the propellers go supersonic before the rest of the propeller / aircraft and destabilize it.
Nathan Reyes
the power creep is exponential, not linear.
you'd also have extra weight from the larger engine and gears needed to each that speed, adding to wheel friction.
Logan Williams
The Bear is a turboprop, so a jet engine with a prop. Piston engine aircraft top out at 500mph.
Jayden Torres
the issue with the sound barrier with propeller planes isn't ingestion of supersonic airflow. that can be solved with clever ducting. the issue is when the prop blades enter trans-sonic speeds at the tips. since the blade is faster at the tips, the shockwave from the tips usually shatters the prop. if you make a strong enough prop (which is possible), you still have to deal with a continual, rotating, sonic boom in front of the plane until the shaft end of the blade goes above trans-sonic speeds.
they tried experimenting with the XF-94H "Tunderscreech". It had fantastic acceleration due to the variable pitch prop, but was unstable to the point that test pilots refused to fly it. because it changed speeds with prop pitch rather than engine speed, the blades were partially supersonic even when idling on the runway. the shockwave tore up the runway and was strong enough to throw a man. the crew often got nausea and headaches being near it. It was the fastest prop plane ever made, but it paid a huge cost for that.
Jordan Bell
Holy shit this sounds awesome
Eli Jackson
>planes don't use internal combustion engines.
Jackson Rodriguez
They don't need combustion, just heat. Jet engines power by nuclear reactor exist.
Ethan Morgan
Supersonic ones don't
Charles Baker
Yes. But that was not the statement.
Aaron Bennett
yes they do. Turbines are ICEs. don't confuse ICE with reciprocating engines.
Lincoln Perez
>test pilots wouldn't fly it
I volunteer. It would be the manliest thing I've ever done, and dying while attempting it would be almost as good.
Nicholas Young
there were only two prototypes built, one was stripped and used for a museum. the other was scrapped and the engine was salvaged for another testing program. If you want to fly one, you have to build it.
Nathan Morales
True. I should have said piston engine