Slashdot Mirror


VW Beetle Fitted with a Jet Engine

6031769 writes "Ron Patrick has decided to go that little bit further by souping up his VW beetle with a jet engine, as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle. Serious planning went into the project. Patrick said, 'We did (computerized) structural analysis and we did stability analysis. And by God, you know what happens? It works!' Contrast with the Rocket Boy to see how it should not be done." Yes, the Darwin award winner was found to be bogus, but unlike the myth, Ron still lives!

16 of 283 comments (clear)

  1. Here's his personal website w/pics by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://www.ecm-co.com.nyud.net:8080/jetbeetle/
    http://www.ecm-co.com.nyud.net:8090/jetbeetle/

    Coralizing the link doesn't seem to work for me, but YMMV.

    FYI - It's hosted on his business website, so try not to /. it.
    A mirror wouldn't hurt.

    -http://www.ecm-co.com/jetbeetle/

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  2. This is CARBAGE.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is nothing NEW!! Jet engines all the time in TopGear..

    http://www.topgear.com/content/timetoburn/sections /carbage/pages/0412/

  3. Re:Military Equipment by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Informative

    If it's properly demilitarized, he shouldn't have any problem.

    For things like missiles & rockets, the process involves removing any fuel/propellant and then doing something to the outside that permanently fucks it's flight characteristics. Usually a big notch in the nose, fins &/or compromising the rocket nozzles/jet engine.

    Any guidance electronics that come with your rocket or missile are another story. You might need a permit to own/buy/import them, assuming you can have them at all.

    You can buy all kinds of fun stuff, but the caveat is that it'll never work again. Unless you're diligent, in which case you can build yourself a fully functional attack helicopter or various other things by digging around in supposedly demilitarized scrap. The Army improperly throws away a lot of stuff.

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  4. Nice reference to the spackle approach. by Inoshiro · · Score: 3, Informative

    "Instead of cut and try, cut and try, cut and try, like the hot rod guys do, you have to do a whole bunch of computer analysis before you build it," he said. "We did (computerized) structural analysis and we did stability analysis. And by God, you know what happens? It works! Duh."

    I have to agree with him regarding hot-rodders. A lot of people seem to think the way to solve a problem is to frob at it until you get something that works. All the Motorola phone hacking kids, Xbox homebrewers, and PSP kiddies seem to think that the spackle approach (throw things at the wall until something sticks) is the best way to solve problems. You know, rather than solving them by understanding them :)

    --
    --
    Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
  5. That's Nothing by fm6 · · Score: 2, Informative

    There's a guy that sells motorcycles powered by helicopter turbines. Jay Leno has one.

  6. Re:how did he get permision to do this? by jeff4747 · · Score: 2, Informative

    The Mythbusters made the mistake of asking permission. Just skip that step, and you'll find you can do a whole lot of things.

  7. How about a missile silo? by Bushcat · · Score: 2, Informative

    Reading the article, it seems he wants to pop an ex-Polish SAM down a scale missile silo, so he can sit there at night watching the lid open and the rocket rise in some kind of son et lumiere armageddonette.

    I figure CHP pulling his volkswagon over will pale in comparison to the visitors he'll get about 10 minutes after the first satellite pass over his little display.

    If I remember (and I may be wrong in detail), when the silo outside Green Valley was decommissioned and turned into a tourist attraction, the decommissioned missile was hauled out, laid on its side and had a big chunk cut out to demonstrate to passing satellites that it was clearly non-flyable. Then it was popped back down the hole, the lid half-opened and huge concrete buffers placed across the rails to prevent the lid from opening fully.

  8. big deal by flogic42 · · Score: 1, Informative

    People routinely drive 160mph on the autobon in Germany. Many cars can do it.

    --
    Check out my women's designer clothing store.
  9. direct video link by stevetures · · Score: 2, Informative
  10. Oy vey, the physics, economy, and safety sucks! by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 3, Informative
    Nice project, but the article glosses over a few major problems with this idea:
    • This is a turboshaft engine. That means it puts out its intended power out a shaft, any thrust out the back is just incidental.. But in the VW installation, there's no way to couple this power to the wheels, so the 1,400 horsepower is just wasted.
    • A jet engine's thrust is least efficient at low speeds. Lots of velocity in the exhaust, but that's mostly wasted at anything less than jet plane speeds. The acceleration of this thing is unspecified, but I'd guess not much more than a fraction of a G.
    • Most of these older jet engines take a very looong time to reach 100% power, something like 20-35 seconds. Not suitable for impressive jack-rabbit-like starts. You'd basically have to jam on the brakes, hit the accelerator, and --wait-- 30 seconds for the power to build up. Not very impressive.
    • There's, ahem, a big safety problem for bystanders-- these early engines were not rated to contain their blades if something bad happens. if the engine intake ingests a small rock or loose bolt, the thing could disassemble in a hurry, with white-hot pieces of turbine blades heading out in all directions. Not a healthy environment to be standing around!
    • The rotational momentum of 10 compressor and one power turbine sections is going to be significant, and not in a good way. This car probably needs a very flat aqnd level and straight highway. Any bump is going to cause all kinds of gyroscopic precession around the center and axis of momentum, which is NOT a good thing.
    1. Re:Oy vey, the physics, economy, and safety sucks! by zerocool^ · · Score: 2, Informative


      It's a good thing you thought of all this stuff, and the Stanford Ph. D. holding owner of a firm called Engine Control and Monitoring didn't. Boy, you'd better call him before he goofs! Thank god for you!

      Everyone's an armchair expert. Also, RTFA, it says when he kicks in the engine, he first gets the car up to 90 miles an hour using the conventional engine in the front of the car.

      --
      sig?
  11. Re:hasn't this been done before? by ultranova · · Score: 2, Informative

    No, not the myth of the man strapping ICBMs to his impala.

    They were JATO (Jet-Assisted Take-Off) rockets, not ICBMs (InterContinental Ballistic Missile).

    A JATO rocket is used to give additional thrust to an airplane so it reaches its takeoff speed faster and can thus rise from shorter runway. An ICBM is used to lift an atomic bomb into space and drop it to another continent from there.

    Just a little difference in size and engine power there ;).

    --

    Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  12. Been done before on an old (Type 1) Beetle by FutureShoks · · Score: 2, Informative

    See the pictures here.

    --
    ___FutureShoks___
  13. Not very impressive. by Phanatic1a · · Score: 4, Informative

    I mean, come on. He doesn't have the engine actually hooked up to any gears to turn the wheels. He just has it mounted on the back of the car, and he's relying on the engine thrust to push the car along.

    Trouble is that that kind of engine isn't designed to do that. It's a T-58 engine, a turboshaft engine off of a helicopter. While the engine on a jet is designed to shoot lots of hot air out the back, producing thrust to drive the jet forward, turboshafts are designed to, well, turn a shaft, to turn a rotor blade. In other words, they're torquey, not thrusty, and helicopters don't go fast because of the engine exhaust, they go fast because of the rotor.

    I was looking to buy a (ex-Soviet) MiG 15 or MiG 17 jet engine.

    He'd have been far better off doing that. The engine off a MiG-17 develops 6,000 ft-lbs of thrust.

    I mean, look what kind of performance he gets with his 1500-horsepower jet engine:

    He said that a jet-boosted run will "pin the speedometer and that's at 140." He thinks that when it hits 160 mph -- he hasn't seen that ... yet -

    140? My 300-horsepower Mustang GT is perfectly capable of hitting 140, and would probably do 160 if a governor doesn't kick in. 1500-horsepower is the power of the gas turbine in an M-1 tank; if he had this thing hooked into the drive wheels, he'd go like a bat out of hell. But as it is, all he's doing is making a lot of noise.

    Which I mean is fun and all, but fundamentally, he doesn't have a jet-powered car. He's got a car with a jet engine in the trunk.

    1. Re:Not very impressive. by be-fan · · Score: 4, Informative

      Trouble is that that kind of engine isn't designed to do that. It's a T-58 engine, a turboshaft engine off of a helicopter. While the engine on a jet is designed to shoot lots of hot air out the back, producing thrust to drive the jet forward, turboshafts are designed to, well, turn a shaft, to turn a rotor blade. In other words, they're torquey, not thrusty, and helicopters don't go fast because of the engine exhaust, they go fast because of the rotor.

      In a more detailed article, they reported that he converted the engine to a turbojet by taking out the shaft turbine, the gearbox, and sticking in a nozzle. Since a turboshaft is just a turbojet with these extra components, it's quite a reasonable conversion.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    2. Re:Not very impressive. by Phanatic1a · · Score: 3, Informative

      Since a turboshaft is just a turbojet with these extra components

      No, that's a gross oversimplification. The bypass ratio of a high-thrust jet engine and that of a high-torque helicopter engine are entirely different, and you don't change that significantly with the described modifications. He's still got an engine designed to produce a lot of shaft horsepower, and you don't get a lot of thrust out of that just because you remove the shaft.