Turbine Lust
ralfmaximus:

boxerfanatic:

rhubarbes:

1968 Shelby Turbine Indy Car.
(via ///KarzNshit///: ‘68 Shelby Turbine Indy Car)

Seriously, a turboshaft engine exhaust right next to the driver’s left ear? (both intense heat, and extreme noise levels…)
Also, little downforce, and no fenders at all? the right front tire will spit things directly into the driver’s face, and the car will be lucky not to take flight. If the engine provides down-thrust, then it is creating drag, and not utilizing as much power as possible in the turbine stage to run the output shaft.
looks serious, but problematic.

Pretty much all Indy cars of the era were open-wheel.
The exhaust port is angled upwards and back, which probably generates downforce from thrust. If that’s so, then more throttle == more downforce.
Also the engine adds ~300 pounds of weight over a typical Indy car of the era, so there’s that too.
iirc the Shelby never actually managed full throttle but still turned in qualifying laps at 165+ MPH… sounds like underutilized power wasn’t the problem, more like tepid throttle response since turbines spool up slowly.
Or maybe aero issues, as you surmise.
iirc there were a few turbine cars that raced at Indy during the 1960s/70s, and the race committees were terrified these beasts would dominate the field once the bugs were worked out.
Plus, safety issues: the cars were unpleasant to follow as the turbines acted like vacuum cleaners, sucking up dirt & gravel to spew behind in a storm of crap. 
So they revised the rules, making turbine cars impractical to build.
Too bad, because imagine what would be possible today with the advances in materials science?

ralfmaximus:

boxerfanatic:

rhubarbes:

1968 Shelby Turbine Indy Car.

(via ///KarzNshit///: ‘68 Shelby Turbine Indy Car)

Seriously, a turboshaft engine exhaust right next to the driver’s left ear? (both intense heat, and extreme noise levels…)

Also, little downforce, and no fenders at all? the right front tire will spit things directly into the driver’s face, and the car will be lucky not to take flight. If the engine provides down-thrust, then it is creating drag, and not utilizing as much power as possible in the turbine stage to run the output shaft.

looks serious, but problematic.

Pretty much all Indy cars of the era were open-wheel.

The exhaust port is angled upwards and back, which probably generates downforce from thrust. If that’s so, then more throttle == more downforce.

Also the engine adds ~300 pounds of weight over a typical Indy car of the era, so there’s that too.

iirc the Shelby never actually managed full throttle but still turned in qualifying laps at 165+ MPH… sounds like underutilized power wasn’t the problem, more like tepid throttle response since turbines spool up slowly.

Or maybe aero issues, as you surmise.

iirc there were a few turbine cars that raced at Indy during the 1960s/70s, and the race committees were terrified these beasts would dominate the field once the bugs were worked out.

Plus, safety issues: the cars were unpleasant to follow as the turbines acted like vacuum cleaners, sucking up dirt & gravel to spew behind in a storm of crap. 

So they revised the rules, making turbine cars impractical to build.

Too bad, because imagine what would be possible today with the advances in materials science?

danielsimonstudio:

Swoooosh.
brennan-aircooled:

holdshortofyankee:

supersonic-youth:

Su-35S

That pilot was like LOL FUCK YOU PHYSICS

Ummm. I’m not even really sure what control inputs you use for that?

brennan-aircooled:

holdshortofyankee:

supersonic-youth:

Su-35S

That pilot was like LOL FUCK YOU PHYSICS

Ummm. I’m not even really sure what control inputs you use for that?

spaceexp:

Video of today’s successful launch of Asiasat 6 on the 12th SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 Rocket

Awesome!

Awesome!

spaceexp:

Falcon 9 first stage soft landing test in water

spaceexp:

Launch of ASIASAT 8 on SpaceX Falcon 9 from Cape Canaveral

supersonic-youth:

Sukhoi T-4 “Сотка”