Jump to content

Talk:Aero-engined car

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mormon Meteor

[edit]

I intend to add the following paragraph to the article once I have added the relevant references:

Ab Jenkins, who in 1935 had set speed records for one hour and for twenty-four hours in a factory-modified Duesenberg SJ on a circuit marked out in the Bonneville Salt Flats, realized that it was no longer possible for a modified production car to compete against aero-engined cars for long-distance speed records. Jenkins had his SJ special further modified, replacing the modified SJ engine with a Curtiss V-1570 "Conqueror" engine. Named "Mormon Meteor" by a contest held by the Deseret News the Conqueror-engined special broke the 500 kilometer record and the 24 hour record in 1936, and broke the 24 hour record again in 1937. Jenkins then commissioned August Duesenberg to build a chassis that was better able to handle the weight, power, and torque of the Conqueror engine. The result was the Mormon Meteor III, which broke the 12 hour record in 1939.

The information comes from the Mormon Meteor article and is sourced there, but I'm not able to search the sources for the information right now. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 01:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That looks great, SamBlob. Just out of curiosity, do you know the record-breaking times and/or speeds? Those would be useful, in my opinion. Once this is all cited, it should look great in the article! When you're ready, go right ahead and stick the Mormon Meteor paragraph in the article (which is in chronological order, as you've probably already noticed). Thanks for helping make the article more comprehensive. Take care! Michael Barera (talk) 22:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the encouragement. I have made some changes, including adding times or speeds where possible and adding the 24-hour record from 1940, and inserted the modified version to the article. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 01:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Aero-engined car. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beast torque spec - 2nd attempt to correct

[edit]

As you can easily tell if you look, I am a complete Wikipedia lightweight (compared to Michael B who appears to be a super heavyweight), so if I don't follow "standard" protocol here, please let me know what I should have done instead.... although I've found considerable difficulty figuring out HOW to use various options that appear to be available, so please be specific.

Also, this perceived discrepancy is so minor that the world will likely never notice which way this gets settled, so I hope there are no hard feels about anything related to any of this.

That said, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower#Calculating_power P[hp] = T[ft*lb] * rpm / 5252

What this article currently says is...

The Beast's engine produced approximately 950 bhp (710 kW) at 2,500 rpm as well as roughly 760 lb·ft (1,030 N·m) of torque

Typically what the HP & Tq number signify are the maximum values that obviously (usually) can occur at different RPMs, however, if we limit our attention to 2,500 rpm, using the equation above tells us 950 bhp at 2500 RPM means it is developing 950*5252/2500 = 1996 ft*lb of Torque at 2500 RPM. Now presumably at some other RPM it developed even more Torque, but the maximum torque cannot be 760 ft*lb if it was making 1996 ft*lb at 2500. So one of these 3 numbers (760, 950 or possibly 2500) must be in error. My strong GUESS is that erroneous value is the 760 because engines that develop their power at "relatively" low RPM always make seemingly (or surprisingly) high Torque values.

I propose changing the torque from "roughly 760" to "at least 2000".

And just because http://www.evo.co.uk/features/features/228789/the_beast.html says something, doesn't mean it can violate the laws of physics. People make mistakes and it seems clear someone in that chain did.

Also, BTW, link 41 is dead and doing a google site search "beast site:https://www.autominded.com" indicates the page is gone.

Also, I notice I didn't receive any email notifying me that my edit had been reversed. Should I or do I need to manually/separately set something up to get notified (I don't normally stay logged into Wikipedia)?

Sorry for such a big post over so littleNotsofastyou2 (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the problem is that one or two numbers should probably be smaller, it's not a good idea to change one to be unfeasibly larger.
The Beast is a whole can of half-told stories. Was it a Merlin? Was it a Meteor? If it no longer has either supercharger nor propellor reduction gear, is that still a Merlin (even if it came out of Balliol) and is it now a Meteor? (for what else is a Meteor?)
I don't believe that the Beast's engine generates 1,000 bhp. That's more than Meteors ever did. It's also more than is generated by a Merlin in ground running - even a Spitfire in full working order can't generate that sort of power without rapid overheating. This is a Merlin [sic] that supposedly hasn't had the heads off in 40 years, so it's unlikely to be in peak condition. It's also unsupercharged and is breathing through a Holley. A carb that doesn't have the ability to achieve that sort of power and here (on a 27 litre engine) would be acting mostly as a restrictor plate. Nor has (AFAIK) any Meteolin ever generated 1,000 bhp without forced induction.
Then apart from the engine generating this power, what happens to it? The TH400 transmission is rated for about 500 ft lbs of torque, but known to handle more. There's also an intermediate gearbox from the engine which reduces this load. But 2000 ft lb is beyond credibility to either generate or to not destroy the transmission (that's take-off torque for a supercharged Merlin).
John Dodd says that this is a Merlin from a Balliol and so we have to believe him. Despite the cam covers. And it now being closer to a Meteor than a Merlin, whatever it was built as. I assume he now takes the drive from the previous supercharger drive. But there's no way it can still have the same performance as a Merlin. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the 1973 Hot Car article about Beast I describes it as a 700 hp / 700 ft lb Meteor engine, running with three large Weber DCOE carbs (still nothing like enough) and the Meteor ignition system, which is limited at 2,500 rpm. That's the original red coupe which was damaged in a fire, then rebuilt with another engine. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • More on Beast HP/Tq discrepancy
First, sorry for adding a new section. If someone knows how to put this right, please feel free.
Second, what do you "hit" to add onto a current section? I tried "Edit" but that didn't look right unless I were to type in the ::: at the start of each paragraph and manually add the time/date at the end. Sorry for being such a noob.
Regarding exceeding the torque limit of the transmission, I believe when you said "There's also an intermediate gearbox from the engine which reduces this load" that the whole point of that is to multiply the revs up which would correspondingly divide the torque down by the same factor thus making the input to the transmission manageable. :::: It also seems like this could be made as a simple enough device to withstand very large input torque.
If you want to assume the 760 ft*lb torque was the accurate maximum AND that the HP did peak at 2500RPM, then this absolutely mandates 2 things:
1) that the torque reached its peak at < 2500 and
2) that the peak HP must be < 362HP.
Picking reasonable guesses at torque profiles indicate the max HP would be more like 340HP or less. That seems silly. In the 1960's why the heck would anybody be talking about this? Any Joe Schmo could do that and much more. So either the 760ft*lb or the RPM@maxHP of 2500 is wrong.
My strong GUESS remains it is the torque that is wrong BECAUSE people just aren't used to thinking about high HP cars that reach max HP at low RPM. They see the big torque number and are impressed/incredulous/doubtful but it is due to being used to higher revving motors and their lower torque numbers for the same max HP. I can relate because I remember touring a bunch of old race cars at the (now discontinued) Coronado Speed Festival and one old car (1930-40s?) had an astronomic seeming max torque displayed. But someone pointed out its reasonable HP and so not to expect outrageous performance and I remember the other thing that stood out was the very low RPMs for the peak values (like down in the 1000's). Anyway, it is just the way things go. If you want to judge performance, look at the HP. And remember, the HP & Tq[ft*lb] are always equal at 5252RPM and if the peak HP is at a very high RPM expect low max torque (like F1 Formula One car#Engine 2 make ~750HP but only 177ft*lb max torque) but if the motor make max HP at an RPM significantly lower than 5252RPM, expect the max Tq to be significantly > than the max HP.
Now I have no idea if the thing made anywhere near 1000HP, but if you are going to limit the torque to 760ft*lb and say the HP peaked at 2500RPM, then you must limit the HP to around ~350HP which will just look silly. Sorry, but that is just the physics. Notsofastyou2 (talk) 22:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wiki stuff: talk pages are edited by hand-indenting with ::: Dull, but there it is. Headings are marked with lines of equals signs. Use four tildes ~~~~ to sign.
Also take a look at WP:OR. This is awfully close to it.
The Meteor engine has a pretty flat torque curve, because it's a 3,500 rpm aero engine, with a rev limiter stuck on it at 2,500rpm. However this isn't a Meteor, it's a Weber-Meteor or a Holley-Meteor, with nothing like enough carburettor to support the claimed powers. I suspect the cars' carbs seriously limit the flatness of that torque curve.
Again, there is no way I can support claims like "torque must be at least <huge number>", just because it fits with a claimed horsepower figure. It is far more likely that this is the hp being over-reported. If we're into OR, then I suspect the carbs are limiting the power significantly at higher airflows. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info on editing - how quaint.
We definitely are coming to different conclusions here and I'm sorry to say it seems either you are wrong or the whole paragraph is full of lies and should be dumped, but my guess is the former. I base this on one of the other few pieces of info in the paragraph saying the car exceeded 180mph that I saw corroborated in a video by the owner's son here http://www.military.com/video/off-duty/autos/john-dodds-merlin-beast-on-top-gear/3867180919001 @1:35. Something over 900bph is roughly what I'd expect it to take for a car with the Beast's aerodynamics to hit 180mph so I am inclined to accept the 950hp as being at least reasonably accurate. The RPM matches what you say which only leaves the torque. Like I've explained, **IF** it made 950hp @ 2500rpm then it made exactly 1995.8 ft*lb of torque at 2500rpm and as we should all know, it made its peak torque at a lower RPM so you really have to conclude 760ft*lb is way (~3x) low. While the torque may seem like a really big number, for low revving motors it really is not. In fact I defy anyone to find even a 500hp dyno plot that peaked at 2500RPM or less that didn't have a max torque > 1000ft*lb. In fact, check in this very article here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aero-engined_car#Revival . Assuming a comparable 2500RPM peak for the comparable displacement motor means the 580bhp would say the Tq @ 2500 would be 1218ft*lb - just a bit shy of the 1250ft*lb quotes as one should expect. However the other example in that paragraph seems to suffer the same issue as the figures on the Beast except in this case it does not quote a peak Tq but rather the Tq at the same RPM as the HP, namely "1,500 bhp and 2,000 lb·ft of torque at 2,400 rpm". Since this is reportedly at the same 2400rpm, the HP should =Tq*RPM/5252 so either it should be 1500hp & 3283ft*lb or 914hp & 2000ft*lb but at least one of the figures quoted for Mavis is also wrong by a factor of ~1.6. Not as bad as the Beast, but still not very good.
Regardless, a maximum of 760ft*lb for the Beast's low revving motor is just plain wrong and way too low.
Note, it is possible that the Beast (motor + the reduction gear) had a torque of 760ft*lb, but this seems like an odd thing to note/claim.
I looked around and found some other links on "the car" (apparently it went through a few incarnations which might be part of the problem here), and found HP values ranging from 700-850 out there. 700BHP seems too low for a poor aerodynamics car to reach 180mph and the 700hp was also coupled to 700ft*lb torque, but as I've explained, that is physically impossible for a car making 700hp peak at 2500rpm or less, so that link http://theamazoeffect.blogspot.com/2014/07/beast-lore-story-of-john-dodds-beast.html seems unreliable.
Another link with numbers is: http://www.spainvia.com/merlincar.htm
I believe I've spelled this out in straightforward mathematical terms and am not sure what else I can do. On the other hand, opposing "arguments" seem largely based on speculation, guesses and a link that defies the laws of physics. Not sure what you want to do, but I strongly urge a large increase in the Beast torque value or omitting it and also doing something to fix the Mavis as well. Peace Notsofastyou2 (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aero-engined_car&oldid=1198082856"