Those F1 grenade engines did not run on gasoline. The stuff they ran was more akin to rocket fuel. Each engine manufacturer had their own fuel company partner that specially developed fuels for them. These fuels added close to 20% to the power potential of the engines versus gasoline engines. The costs were $2000/gallon before the special fuels were mandated away.

nope, it's "feeble"

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...eble&x=20&y=17

:D

Topic = Axial Flow Compressors/Superchargers!!! Please!

Babylou, It was still a hydrocarbon fuel. I'm aware it had a specific gravity of .81 or more. They blended it for each specific track. But that's what they do in F1. Money doesn't matter.
But in reality the fuel was "free".

Still it ain't nitro.

So what are the HP figures required to drive these compressors at various RPM?

(Question asked before, but an(other) attempt to get back on topic!!)

Cheers,
Hymee.

Hymee, I don't have those numbers yet. If you've been following the thread you woould see that I just put the thing together. It will get bolted to the bench tomorrow. then it takes some time to get all the data and put it in a readable form.

Richard

I'll throw my quesitons back in as well. Forgive me if it makes little sence but could you run this design off an electric motor. It would seem you could design for a particular RPM and Boost output and attach a motor that gives you the desired RPM. Then with a flick of a switch you go from zero boost (economy mode) to X psi boost in a few seconds regardless of the engine RPM.

I am sure their are a lot of considerations that I am not taking into account but I figure it worth at least asking.

The T-37 tweet uses a centrifugal type compressor section in it's engines. This is the same engine used in Aerospace ground equipment as an HVLP air source for starting bigger jet engines. I didn't see this aircraft listed but it is still in use as an Air Force multi engine jet trainer. Do I still win??

Many of those aircraft listed use twin compressor and exhaust turbine sections connected through a hollow shaft allowing them to work separately but still simultaneously. Audi just picked up the ball on that idea with it's direct manual gearbox. Proof positive that some of the best automotive technology comes from aircraft.

Keep up the good work Richard. The group 311 said it best, "Fuck the naysayers" The wankel engine is such a unique piece, it only deserves a unique supercharger as well.

P.S. The only 2 Saab something or anothers I can think of are the Viggen and Draaken.


Regards,
SSgt Newton, Aircraft Maintenance Craftsman turned recruiter, USAF

Jtdwab,

This electric idea has been around for years. It really isn't practical as the amountt of juice it would thak requires more then you have available.
the other thing is that if your concern is "economy mode" consider this. During cruise driving there is a reduced pressure zone where the rotor is turning. Therefore very little power is being used turning it. only ehen required to do work and the pressure and density goes up is there power consumed by the blower. This does not hold true in a blow thru system,. there it will draw power and make heat all the time.

Just remember making heat takes power. This is a rule you cannot beat. It is the reason efficency is so important.


Newtlicious,

You win. After my screw up I'm glad someone came up with a candidate. I'm not familure with the TWeet. Apparently it is a trainer. Just for my own edifacation I will look it up later.

Thanks for the note. Thanks for the Saab names I couln't remember them at all, just a blank. Of course as I reveue the list I remember a few others I left out. It was just to make a point anyway.

Richard

I know dude, It's cool. Just trying to help. You'd be here all day trying to name all the aircraft in service worldwide. Keep up the good work!

JUST BUILD THE DAMNED THING ALREADY! Just kidding...LOL :D

Folks, the bickering has been removed from this thread.

Drewstein, babylou, & Rotarygod, please don't start it up again.

Thanks Omi...I subscibed to this thread and it was a bit annoying getting emails about updates only to find insult tossing. I for one appreciate it!

Richard,
You have my support for this project! I am really looking forward to seeing the kit assembled.

Thanks mate.

Cheers,
Hymee.

thanks omi,

-e-

Yeah thanks Omi!!!

Omi, you really are a 'Super' Moderator. :)

enough of the thanking omi or he'll have to remove those posts too :)

You're just jealous 'cause you're not a super like him. :)

But really, let's get back on topic. This thread's been hijacked long enough. Any news today Richard?

Thanks for the thanks folks. Just doin m'job. But I'm starting to get embarassed about it... :o So yeah, let's get back on topic.

What's the good word, Richard? Have you installed it yet and produced a 500 WHP beast with no lag? :D

Hymee,

You asked a while back how much HP to drive a compressor (supercharger) to make the ballpark performance we are talking about. So, I thought I'd offer up an approximate answer to your question. Please note: This does not account for the bearing/mechanical frictional losses etc.... it only accounts for the power input to compress the air to the boost pressures we are talking about. My assumptions:

8.09 psig of boost (Pr=1.55)
Assumed peak boost at 9000k RPM which by my calcs leads to approx 0.64 -to- 0.677 lbm/sec of airflow (depending on inlet air temp). Two levels of compressor efficiency were used 65% and 85% which likely bridges a typical design in this size class. I've ball parked the constant pressure specific heat at 0.24 BTU/Lbm. So.... drum roll please

85% efficient system = 19.65 Hp
65% efficient system = 24.67 Hp

to drive the supercharger compressor to make more power.

So... there you have it.

Regards

Turbine_pwr,

Thanks mate. That is the sort of stuff I like to see!

How do you feel the mechanical/frictional losses compare between an axial flow, and a twin screw?

I have a graph published for an autorotor that says it takes about 22kW (~30HP) to pump about 20 kg/min (0.73 lbm/s)mass flow at 13,000 RPM input speed (full load at 1.6 bar abs (pr = 1.6)). It can pump up to 25kg/min (0.92 lbm/s) but drains 32kW (43HP).

That seemed a lot of power to be drained :(

There are other graphs for higher pressure ratios for the device, and obviously the power required goes up, as does the discharge heat.

BTW - I have measured the Renesis flows 225 grams/second of air (0.496 lbm/s) at full load / WOT @ 9000 RPM. I did that using the MAF sensor and the ODBII diagnostics.

Thanks again for the input!

Cheers,
Hymee.

Just for giggles... I thought I would tell you all what engines are in these beasts that Richard rattled off. Sorry to digress here but thought some of you may be interested

Richard wrote"

What type of compressor is run in each of the following aircraft?

F 4 - GE J-79 afterburning axial flow turbojet, Isreal uses the PW1120 turbofan
F 5 - GE F-20 which if a derivative of the J85 I believe
F 14 - PW TF30 originally but upgraded to the GE F-110
F 15 - 2 P&W F-100-PW-220 turbofans (25,000 lbs thrust each)
F 16 - Either 1 P&W F-100-PW-220 at 23,450 lb thrust or 1 GE F110-GE-100 at (27,600 lbs thrust)
FA 18 - GE-F404
F 22 - 2 P&W F119-PW-100 at 35,000 lbs thrust each
F 35 - 1 P&W F135 turbofan or the GE F136 at 35,000 lbs thrust each
F 101 - ???
F 111 - PW TF30 (first use of mixedflow afterburning turbofan engine)
F 117 - 2 GE F404-GE-F1D2 nonafterburning turbofans at 9,040 lbs of thrust each
F 86 - ???
A 7 - ???
A 10 - 2 GE TF34-GE-100 turbofans (interesting a high bypass Turbofan in a close airsupport airplane)
B 52 - I think originally the J57, now 8 P&W TF33-P-3 turbofans (17,000 lbs thrust each)
B 1 - 4 GE F101-GE-102 turbofans (30,780 lbs thrust each)
B 2 - 4 GE F118-GE-100 turbofans (17,300 lbs thrust each)
707 - 4 p&W TF33-PW-100 turbofans at 19,000 thrust each
727 - P&W JT8D ??? and GE CFM56-7 turbofans/Rolls equivalents
737 - 2 CFM56 high bypass turbofans
747 - GE CF6 turbofans at 56,700 lb thrust each
757 - ???
767 - ???
777 - GE90
AB 300 - ???
AB 320 - CFM56
MIG 25 Tumansky design
MIG 29 Tumanski design
Marage F1 Smecma ???
Saab something or other (there is also the new Grippen
SR 71 - P&W J58 (really the first mixed flow afterburning turbofan)
DC 10 - 3 GE CF6-50C2 at 52,500 lbs thrust each
MD 11 - Rolls Royce RB211 (triple spool turbofan)
MD 90 ???
T-37-the tweet- 1 Continental J69-T-25 turbojet (centrifugal compressor) 1025 lbs thrust
T38 - 2 GE J85-GE-5A afterburning turbojets at 2,900 lbs thrust each)
T43 - 2 P&W JT8D-9 turbofans

That's about all I can peel off the top of my head."

Hymee,

The mechanical losses for these axial and centrifugal compressors will be considerably smaller than those seen in the twin screw or roots blower designs. A first order approximation would be on the order of 1-2% of the maximum power. So that would only add another .2 to .3 Hp

Your airflow measurement is a nice number to have. I submitted much earlier in this thread or in another thread a theoretical airflow based on a 100% volumetric efficiency... this leads to a NA airflow at 9k rpm of 0.5306 lbm/sec. With the number you've added... the volumetric efficiency appears to be around

Sorry... hit the wrong button by accident.

So Volumetric eff at 9k rpm appears to be around 93.5%. Neat. The numbers I used for the airflow take into account the additional airflow due to the compression in the supercharger.

However, I still assumed a 100% volumetric efficiency. If we now took the new 93.5% number then airflow and power would drop potentially by as much as 6.5%. However, because of the additional air density... I think the volumetric efficiency would be nudged up a bit. Maybe into the 95% range???

Regards