Jet boosted Tesla

Wouldn't the jet engines have been put to better use on the roof or sides of the car where they can get better air flow?
I mean, being mounted at the trunk, the air flow is blocked!
A cool test indeed 👌 however, using fuel to power an electric car is defeating the whole point of the electric car. Certainly a lot of money spent from someone who has a lot of money to spend.
 
Last edited:
If you look at the way those punny engines are mounted on thin scaffolding I highly doubt any performance benefits.
 
That's hilarious. Wasn't one of the issues with Chrysler's turbine car from the early 1960's that the exhaust gas was so hot it could blister the paint on a car that was pulled up too close behind it at a traffic light ?

Sorry about your paint job sir. Just think what would happen with today's cars that are all plastic on the front end.
 
DwightFrye said:
That's hilarious. Wasn't one of the issues with Chrysler's turbine car from the early 1960's that the exhaust gas was so hot it could blister the paint on a car that was pulled up too close behind it at a traffic light ?

Sorry about your paint job sir. Just think what would happen with today's cars that are all plastic on the front end.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that was an issue. The turbine was under the hood, and exhausted to the ground. The rear nozzles were a stylistic addition.

Heat on the pavement while idling was an issue.

The turbine power plant was a very cool concept. Inefficient by today‘s standards, but with remarkably flexibility in fuel, even with hydropneumatic fuel metering. Super smooth operation.
 
Astro14 said:
I don’t think that was an issue. The turbine was under the hood, and exhausted to the ground. The rear nozzles were a stylistic addition.

Heat on the pavement while idling was an issue.

The turbine power plant was a very cool concept. Inefficient by today‘s standards, but with remarkably flexibility in fuel, even with hydropneumatic fuel metering. Super smooth operation.
Click to expand...
Recently it came out that the Turbine engine would have set Chrysler back $2-3,000 per unit making it a tough sell.
 
1963-chrysler-turbine-photo-497935-s-986x603.jpg
 
CharBaby said:
Wouldn't the jet engines have been put to better use on the roof or sides of the car where they can get better air flow?
I mean, being mounted at the trunk, the air flow is blocked!
A cool test indeed 👌 however, using fuel to power an electric car is defeating the whole point of the electric car. Certainly a lot of money spent from someone who has a lot of money to spend.
Click to expand...
The builder explains his decision in the video.

It's just an experiment, an attempt to satisfy one person's curiosity. I'm impressed with the fact that he built this whole thing from scratch.
 
97prizm said:
If you look at the way those punny engines are mounted on thin scaffolding I highly doubt any performance benefits.
Click to expand...
And yet he reduced 0-60 speed by about 30%
It appears you've made your judgment without having watched the video.
 
Last edited:
DwightFrye said:
That's hilarious. Wasn't one of the issues with Chrysler's turbine car from the early 1960's that the exhaust gas was so hot it could blister the paint on a car that was pulled up too close behind it at a traffic light ?
Click to expand...

Jay Leno had this happen to him with his helicopter engine powered motorcycle. In one of his videos he mentions how the plastic bumper on a Civic next to him started to melt.

 
atikovi said:
Does his insurance company know about this? Can it even be street legal?
Click to expand...
Pretty sure his insurance doesn't know and would drop him if he told them. If there were an accident it's likely they would deny liability and collision if the engines were on, or give him a really hard time, especially if there were in contact with another vehicle or person.
 
CharBaby said:
Wouldn't the jet engines have been put to better use on the roof or sides of the car where they can get better air flow?
Click to expand...
Not really. The intake is not using "ram air" as they are bell mouthed screens. And the position of the jetpipe is largely irrelevant here. The engines likely made 100% rated thrust in that location.
 
Shel_B said:
And yet he reduced 0-60 speed by about 30%
It appears you've made your judgment without having watched the video.
Click to expand...
With two engines I'm seeing 60 mph and he doesn't seem to be going any faster than traffic. Second the whole assembly that the engines are mounted on flex really bad. This means not all of the thrust is being transferred to the vehicle. Did he say where and who manufactured the engines?
 
Warped Perception also directly charged his Tesla batteries while driving, with a custom made very high voltage generator. The results are quite interesting, and before we state some now obvious faults in the design and execution... Keep in mind that the information gathered has a lot of value. He achieved an estimated 14MPG at 80 and 18MPG at 70 with a rather inefficient air cooled 400cc engine-generator combo. He calculates the overall system thermal efficiency at 16%.

He is also trying the same thing with a modern and very efficient turbodiesel genset.



 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top