It still needs an automatic transmission for reversing direction and adapting to vehicle speed
why would it need a "automatic transmission" to reverse?
Any normal gearbox and clutch would achieve the same no?
Chances are, the car could drive a fast backwards as it could drive forward - not that it would matter much anyway.
This particular design makes it extremely low revving
I think it will depend on your definition of extremly low reving.
The first-stage turbine always rotates while the engine is operating, its speed varying from 18-22,000 rpm at idle up to about 44,600 rpm at rated power. The second-stage turbine, being connected directly to the car's drivetrain, rotates only while the car is in motion. Its speed ranges from zero at standstill to a maximum of about 45,700 rpm
I have not found any fuel performance and weight figures for this design.
Three major engine components (compressor, regenerator and burner) showed significant improvements in operating efficiency . The compressor efficiency was brought up to 80 per cent, a 10 per cent increase. The regenerator or heat exchanger unit reclaimed almost 90 per cent of the heat energy in the exhaust gas whereas peak efficiency in the 1956 cross-country run was around 86 per cent. Burner efficiency also was improved so that it was approaching the point of ideal combustion.
1964 turbine car specifications
* 130 horsepower at 3,600 rpm (output shaft speed); 425 lb-ft of torque at zero rpm!
* Weight: 410 lb - 25 inches long, 25.5 inches wide, 27.5 inches tall (without accessories, which make the overall length 35 inches).
* Fuel requirements: what've you got? diesel, unleaded gas, kerosene, JP-4, others. No adjustments needed to switch from one to the other.
* Compressor: centrifugal, single-stage compressor with 4:1 pressure ratio, 80% efficiency, 2.2 lb/sec air flow
* First stage turbine: axial, single-stage, 87% efficiency, inlet temperature 1,700 degrees F.
* Second-stage turbine: axial, single-stage, 84% efficiency, max speed 45,700 rpm
* Regenerator: dual rotating disks, 90% effectiveness, 22 rpm max speed
* Burner: single can, reverse flow, 95% efficiency
* Maximum gas generator speed: 44,600 rpm
* Maximum output speed, after reduction gears: 4,680 rpm
* Exhaust temperature at full power: 500 degrees Farenheit.
Although the progress of the gas turbine and its advantages are impressive, additional progress in improved component efficiencies (particularly in the compressor) and the future possibility inherent in increased operating temperatures, are extremely promising. For example, a 400-degree increase in nozzle inlet temperature would mean a 40 per cent increase in specific output for a given-size power plant, or conversely, a reduction in size for a fixed horsepower. The same 400 degrees increase would improve fuel economy over 20 per cent without needing to take advantage of any further increase in component efficiency.
The car left New York City on December 27, 1961, to begin a coast-to-coast engineering evaluation. After traveling 3, 100 miles through snowstorms, freezing rain, subzero temperatures and 25 to 40 mile per hour head winds, it arrived in Los Angeles on December 31.
The turbine not only lived up to all expectations but exceeded them! An inspection showed every part of the engine in excellent condition. Fuel economy was consistently better than a conventional car which traveled with the turbine car and was exposed to the same conditions. The key to the excellent performance and economy of the third generation gas turbine (called the CR2A) was its new variable turbine nozzle mechanism.
Keep in mind that we talk about the technology of 1964, so some advances are to be expected with todays know how.
While I´m sure, we will not see gasturbines in F1 in the near future, it would be wrong IMHO to just dimiss the possibilities of the technology.
As with all things in life, where there is some light, there is some shadow.
And there is more then one way to skin a cat, just that things are not done in a certain way, does not mean it is entirly impossible to do it.
BTW: what is the difference between water/sand/dust particles hitting a turbine blade and a turbo charger impeller at >100000 rpm?
