1944 Mustang

410,757,864,530 DEAD KRAUTS

>tfw he doesn't have a Rolls Royce designed engine in his Mustang

He killed evil air nazis so you can live in a free country. You should pay homage to this hero you altright troll

>mfw dead krauts

>27 liters
>1720 up
>63hp/L

>5.0
>460 hp
>92 hp/L

Tfw plane fags can't into engineering so badly that they can't break 70hp/L with forced induction

>70 year old engine is more reliable and nearly as efficient as a new car
o i am laffin

>tfw the mustang will never have a V12 again
there was a time when V8 mustang fags were the displacelets

>1943 Mitsubishi
>1130hp
>2017 Mitsubishi
>78hp

>not putting airplane engines in boats

...

I AM BOMBERMAN

>2018 Mitsubishi
>0hp
That car brand is gonna be ded soon. Hyundai/Kia already stole their whole demographic.

On another note, I wish the turbojet/fan/shaft was never developed, or at least never put in aircraft because it would be cool as hell to see current fighter planes with big ass piston engines. Imagine Skunkworks working with piston (or dorito!) engines. It probably would have helped forced injection develop a whole lot more and the turbocharging systems we have in cars today would be much more advanced.

smells like nigger in here

>Turbojets should never have been
>Our turbo technology would be so much more advanced!

I think you have it the other way around. Turbines should have been put into cars. Chrysler figured out the exhaust issue in the 60's. Lag and other things could've been ironed out in the following decades.

Where? Get him!

I was just talking about that the other day. If the tech was there, Toyota could figure out a way to build turbines with such tight tolerances for a reasonable price.

Turbines are compact for the power they produce so I thought it would be cool to have a turboshaft running a generator and then batteries to store the power until needed.

You wouldn't need a full battery pack either, just enough for maybe a couple miles of reserve power and the turbine always charging them so it can run at a steady speed even for city driving.

Why not run the turbine shaft into a 9000 speed transmission?

CVT!!!!

Power to weight>>>>>>>>>Power to displacement.
Weight is all that matters
Displacement is literally empty space
Who the fuck cares about displacement?
Displacement and weight do not correlate.
Idiots everywhere.

both of those are wrong la

not just forced induction
water methanol and lead as octane boosters

also they running at high altitude
so that 1720 hp is even less when the aircraft is in use

>specific output meme
>not hanging self for it.

allison v12 a shit

>not top mounting a 110,000hp turbine on a 3k civic

you know you need metal around the cylinder buddy
so the bigger the cylinder the more metal you will need
so you will have more mass

its soo dumb because mitsubishi helped them get started

I thought it used a rolls royce V12?

the later ones did

for me, it's the mk.2 Tempest

kek

Supercharged with 125 US octane (150 grade fuel) leaded gas vs 91 US unleaded naturally aspirated.
Oh and displacement is another thing

Only the D and later models

Turboprop planes do this, sorta. They spool up the turbines and do adjustments with propeller pitch.

Ehh, it's not quite the same. They run into the reduction gearbox and then basically spin at constant RPM and adjust the pitch. That would be hard to do with a car with stop and go. Well you could do a CVT with a torque converter or clutch but then you are still basically running at highway loads at stoplights.

That's why I thought the battery idea would be cool because while the car is stopped, the turbine would be charging the batteries. And then under acceleration, the car would draw more power than the turbine produces but it takes that from the battery. If there is lots of heavy acceleration and stopping and the batteries are running really low, crank the turbine up a bit. So the turbine can still change speeds, but it is more subtle because the battery is there to store excess energy or provide extra energy when needed.

Think of it like a big water tank with 5000 gal of water. You have a garden hose at the top filling it at a consitent medium rate, and then a fire hose draining it at the bottom. For short periods of time, like merging onto the highway, the fire hose is open full blast, but most of the time just cruising and not using much power, that fire hose is only open a tiny bit and the garden hose up top is still filling that tank about the same rate or faster.

So if you can somewhat predict what to set the garden hose at (turbine charging the batteries), you won't really have to change the pressure. The big water tank (batteries) will always have enough for those few times you need to open the fire hose (electric motors at wheels) full blast. And you could always turn the turbine up a bit for long drives at high speeds on the highway, but at least it would remain there for awhile and it's not constant large variations in throttle input like a piston engine in city driving which turbines aren't so good at.

Probably a terrible explanation, but I'm tired and have been funposting all day.

posts on /pol

It just lacks two stage supercharger, so not suitable high altitude missions
The Brits use the Allison mustangs as reconnaissance and ground attacker and they love it
It was due to the Brits' high regard, US army decided to make it a high altitude high speed fighter

>2300HP
>literally double the power
Muscle > JDM

*gets out manoeuvred*

Then explain why a dry, dressed FA20 2.0 liter weighs over 400 pounds... (in this photo, 493, you can subtract the Dolly weight of 13 lbs, and transmission weight, dry, of 78)
While a dressed 5.9 liter Lycoming IO-360 aircraft engine weighs 296, over 100 pounds lighter, at triple the displacement.
Stop basing your shit opinions on incorrect assumptions, you are a dumb piece of shit and this explanation was a waste of time.

holy shit look how many japs this madman rekt

>>"The Hellcat was a rugged aircraft that the Japanese found very hard to shoot down. Most Japanese aircraft, including the Zero, gained their great manoeuvrability at the expense of armour and resilience. Hellcat pilots reported that most Japanese aircraft they shot down either exploded or caught fire, while the Hellcat could take a great deal of damage and still stay in the air. Navy and Marine Corps Hellcats were credited with 5,156 enemy aircraft shot down (4,947 by carrier based aircraft), 75% of the Navy’s total. This gave them the outstanding kill to lose ratio of 19 to 1 in air to air combat (more were lost to anti-aircraft fire and accidents)."
Weaboos on suicide watch.

historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_F6F_combat.html

>19 to 1
holy shit

*energy fights*
Nothin personal... kid...

*looks better*

this

Are you still spreading bullshit tripfag?
>Turbines are compact for the power they produce so I thought it would be cool to have a turboshaft running a generator
They are hideously inefficient for that, and other low-power applications.
A standard RJ APU, like, say, a Hamilton-Sundstrand T-62T can spin a 400-amp, 28v generator...
That's 15 measly HP worth of electricity.
Producing this power, It burns 102 pounds of fuel an hour. That's 15 GALLONS of diesel per hour for 11 kilowatts. If you added more generators (and magical cooling) up to the maximum rated 95 shp, fuel consumption would increase significantly.
A piston diesel is more efficient in every way at low power - it's just heavier, and airplanes can't afford the extra weight. The efficiency crossover occurs at a power level beyond what would be practical in cars, and at an IAT below that found on the ground.
>They run into the reduction gearbox and then basically spin at constant RPM and adjust the pitch.
They don't run at a constant RPM. RPM varies with power setting, from ~76% at flight idle, to ~101% at full power.
In most applications, the gearbox runs on its own free turbine, independent from the gas generator turbine. This "power turbine" spins at a constant speed, determined by the output speed from the gearbox, and the torque delivery changes with gas generator speed. Except Garretts. Fuck Garretts.
>Well you could do a CVT with a torque converter or clutch but then you are still basically running at highway loads at stoplights.
You're completely wrong, based on the incorrect information from above. You can make it work without a CVT, with very little loss. I'd explain it if I thought you'd bother to read or understand.

>19:1 KD
Holy

>19:1 KD
moly

>inefficient for that

Yeah that's one of the things that was interesting when I was reading up on it, never realized how much more efficient they were as they got substantially larger.

>76% to 101%
That's a lot different than cars with like 5% to 100% w

Why so salty? Which tripfag wanted you to call him "stepdad"?

Dank

Thank you user

>1944
>2300HP, 18 cylinders
>2016
>707HP, 8 cylinders
Where did America go wrong?

Dude i can only DREAM of that shit as a virtual pilot in Battle Field.

>he can only turn around 1 axis
lmao

>he has to sit in his Mustang

Tetsuzō Iwamoto, Saburō Sakai
They all use energy fight style
Circling is for plebs

fuck off /n/

We can turn this into another anime sticker thread instead

>not having 10,000 hp
>not having to rebuild your motor after a pass on the drag strip

>76% to 101%
>That's a lot different than cars with like 5% to 100% w
Yes, but that's just the speed range.
Torque output does not vary linearly with speed the same way a recip does.
Torque output at minimum (ground) idle is practically zero so all you have to do is run a free power turbine, then primary reduction prior to a fairly standard high-stall torque converter, which you could run straight to the final drive without a transmission at all, as long as your primary reduction was appropriate.
The speed of your gas generator section is independent, and the torque is all that matters.
That means you can stop the car entirely and spin the gas generator section down to a minimum idle of somethwere in the 55% range, and the input torque to the stopped free power turbine would be practically nothing.
At idle speeds, you need to bleed off a substantial amount of compressor air to atmosphere, otherwise compressor stall. Idle fuel consumption is very high, making it further impractical.
>Why so salty?
Attaching a name to misinformation stated as fact, rather than disclaimed as supposition.

They don't even make full power for the whole run. Most of the cylinders are dieseling or not firing at all by the end of the run, due to literally destroying the plugs in the first three full-power seconds.

>Not running a Merlin / Griffon on 95% Nitromethane
Pathetic

That's metal as fuck

How much faster would they be if the engine could completely last for like 10 seconds?

The zero is actually made of wood

That's still why I think running em to batteries would be the way to go. Ofc it's going to be inefficient since it's a small turbine, but then you gotta factor that you're idling at 55% power. So you run it at a consistent speed like my water storage tank analogy and you're charging the batteries at idle and then under acceleration you could be using like 150% the power that the turbine-generator is producing but you're pulling the other 50% from the batteries. Then when you're cruising at a steady speed maybe using 80% of the power capacity, the turbine can keep running at 100% til those batteries are fully charged then could slow down to 80% power and it's not such a drastic change in the RPMs of the turbine and doesn't happen nearly as often as a typical car.

Because without something like that it just seems like you're wasting a ton unless you're cruising at high speeds or accelerating hard. With my theory, the turbine will be less powerful than the electric motors and battery. No 100% science right here, but maybe the turbine-generator only puts out 100kw, but when you need harder acceleration the batteries help provide 200kw to the electric motor.

If I had lots of small turbines and generators and electric motors and batteries, I would experiment in my garage and get back to you.

Aside from durability and strength of armament it's mostly down to the US employing better tactics and training to strike at their enemies' biggest weakness.
For the Zero (and a fair number of the other planes they used) it was lack of power. Sure, it turned phenomenally and any lone US plane had no chance against it in a turnfight but this was overcome by simply:
1.making sure you're not alone
2.avoiding turnfighting
Using their own plane's superior power they could and would simply leave the japs wiggling around on the deck and pick them apart. Really not much you can do if your opponent is much faster and at a higher altitude.

Of course, performance is just one of many variables to take into account here, from combat numbers to maintenance to the actual type of aircraft and was it even in the air when "shot down". Raiding an island airfield is much easier than an aircraft carrier.

Also i saw Based Bomber Harris so this is now bomber thread.

>their airplanes don't have Passion & Soul™
>they also don't have 18 cylinders

10 seconds...
I don't know but it would probably be horrifying, especially considering the ET's are already sub-4 seconds.
Cucked NHRA continues to pile on rules to try to stop the cars from getting too fast, and they keep getting faster anyway.
The trap speeds now compared to the late 80's are already terrifying.

>1863 Mustang
>1hp

>1945 Hawker
>3,500 Horsepower
>2017 Hawker
>non existent
POPPET VALVES A SHIT, A SHIT!

>55% power
55% of rated RPM, not 55% power... More like 5% power - that's why I said the power curve does not match that of a piston engine, perhaps I should have been clearer.
> not such a drastic change in the RPMs of the turbine and doesn't happen nearly as often as a typical car
But turbines don't give a shit about drastic power changes... They can do it all day long... Plus, the airflow through the engine is sufficient to cool it, so no rad, just an oil cooler.
>water storage tank analogy
The analogy is fine, but the engineering isn't.
> With my theory, the turbine will be less powerful than the electric motors and battery.
Why? The more powerful the turbine, the more efficient it is, you identified that on your own. You gain nothing from making the turbine smaller.
Why suffer the conversion loss and the epic headache of cooling a huge generator, and carry around all the weight of the electrical system when straight turbine power is more efficient?
If you wanted what you are describing, a fairly standard gas hybrid would do much better.
>If I had lots of small turbines and generators and electric motors and batteries, I would experiment in my garage and get back to you.
You don't have to. I have lots of big turbines and I've already done all the math for your proposals back in college.
Pic related.

Post more.

How do i into airplane's

I'd prefer not to, most of them are immediately identifying, something I'd rather not do on Veeky Forums... In fact, I've already taken that one down.
How do you mean? What would you like to do with airplanes, and where (generally) do you live?

Extra lives.

...

>awd
>zero turn radius
How did they do it?

>I'd prefer not to, most of them are immediately identifying, something I'd rather not do on Veeky Forums... In fact, I've already taken that one down.
What do you mean? is it identifying to who you are or is it revealing some top secret stuff at work?

Everyone in aviation (civil and mil) is on a paranoid-schzophrenic-tier hair trigger about the general public / the feds. Necessarily so.
I don't like imagining the questions that would be asked about my judgement if I started posting shit on the internet and it went full-circle.
Head down, off the radar = key to success.
People have been fired in many parts of aviation for sticking the wrong shit on their fagbook or cuntstagram

Lel, that pic was useless since it was gone so fast.

So the efficiency vs size thing, how fast does that change? Wasting all of that energy at idle would really be negated because the larger turbine would be that much more efficient?

Like let's think of a turbine that could fit under the hood of a car, something the size of a 4cyl engine vs something the size of a 6cly... powerplants of that size, how much more power would the one roughly 50% larger produce? Like twice the power? 5x the power?

He doesn't want to reveal his power level

B/C also used Packard/RR engines. Only the A (or "Mustang I" under british squadrons) used an Allison.

LOL

>Hellcat initiate Boom n Zoom
>Zero can't get away
>look at him run!!
>he can't equalize energy states
>look at the Zero panic!
>look and laugh!
>laughinggirls.jpg

nice fuel tanks you got there
would be a shame if something were to happen to them

BASED Corsair
A
S
E
D

that wasn't a zero though, can't remember what nip plane it was though

Packard built using a RR design

>Lel, that pic was useless since it was gone so fast.
Yeah, I explained.
>So the efficiency vs size thing, how fast does that change?
Efficiency changes with IAT and with power output.
but basically, not fast enough to make it efficient or practical.
They're most efficient running flat-out, and least efficient at idle. (This is the big, insurmountable problem, because your car is almost never using 100% power)
They get more efficient as the max power increases.
Since we're stuck on the ground, the IAT problem can't be helped...
Little understood fact - they don't care about air density the way piston engines do, the increase in turbine engine efficiency with altitude is related to the increase in max temperature change. The max ITT is fixed, so the lower the IAT is, the larger the available temperature exchange, and the more available power from each unit of air mass, meaning you'll make more power at the same AFR, which means if you don't need the extra power, you can reduce the AFR, hence more efficiency.
So, on the ground at high temp, the efficiency sucks, but onto fitting...
These are the smallest engines above the piston / turbine efficiency crossover point that fit in a car.
You can fit a PT6A-34 in the same space an LS + T56 fits. It makes a maximum rated 750 SHP, and burns 300 lbs / hour at 75% power, sea level, 15 degrees c. It burns 125 lbs/hr at idle.
You can fit a PT6-66 in the same space, it has a maximum thermodynamic output at sea level of 1450 SHP, but is usually flat rated at 850 to 26000 Feet @ ISA. It burns 500 lbs / hr at sea level at 75% power.
So, this is way too much fuel and power for practical use, but they'd make fuck-awesome dragsters... So let's look at a smaller one.

>mfw no tractor with triple V12's

>1HP = 750 watts
>a fit human can make over 1 horsepower during maximum exertion
>which means a horse makes several horsepower
???

A trail horse will peak at around 15hp or 1hp continuous.

Are Germans secret Americans at heart?