Rainy day auto
Well-Known Member
This is the best thread on the site and it's not even about B bodies. I am getting motivated with this site to mess with the GTX and see what I need and dont need to get it at least yard worthy
For all of You Train Lovers
- Thread starter khryslerkid
- Start date
First stage
Second stage
The pour is about 3/8 deep. This lake took two water kits and the river will take 3. The white you see will turn totally clear. The gloss mod podge will cover the whole lake giving it a hazy look of waves. I'll detail paint white in some areas to simulate water foaming when I'm done. The brown will be blended with more sand to complete the beach. The swimming area will be roped off with red and white rope floats, miniature glass beads with white thread. We'll see...
Second stage
The pour is about 3/8 deep. This lake took two water kits and the river will take 3. The white you see will turn totally clear. The gloss mod podge will cover the whole lake giving it a hazy look of waves. I'll detail paint white in some areas to simulate water foaming when I'm done. The brown will be blended with more sand to complete the beach. The swimming area will be roped off with red and white rope floats, miniature glass beads with white thread. We'll see...
3sloppydogs
Well-Known Member
- Local time
- 8:27 AM
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2019
- Messages
- 1,641
- Reaction score
- 4,685
- Location
- carroll county MD.
The big boy locomotive is going coast to coast in 2026. Here is a link.
www.up.com
Big Boy No. 4014’s Schedule | Union Pacific
Union Pacific connects 23 western U.S. states, providing safe and efficient railroad transportation, freight shipping and logistics.
www.up.com
The M-497, nicknamed the Black Beetle, was an experimental jet-powered train that set speed records in 1966 but was ultimately scrapped due to practical limitations.
Wikipedia+1
Wikipedia+2
American-Rails.com+1
Overview
The M-497 Black Beetle was an experimental railcar developed by the New York Central Railroad in 1966. It was designed to test the feasibility of high-speed rail travel using jet propulsion. The train was equipped with two second-hand General Electric J47-19 jet engines, originally used in the Convair B-36 Peacemaker bomber, mounted on a Budd Rail Diesel Car (RDC-3).Wikipedia+1
Speed
On July 23, 1966, the Black Beetle achieved a remarkable speed of 183.68 mph (295.6 km/h) during test runs on a straight stretch of track between Butler, Indiana, and Stryker, Ohio. This speed set an American rail speed record that stood until 1974. Some sources even claim it reached speeds up to 196 mph (315 km/h), making it one of the fastest trains on open tracks in the United States at that time.Wikipedia+2
Purpose
The primary goal of the Black Beetle project was to attract passengers back to rail travel during a time when the industry was declining. The train's design featured an aerodynamic cowling and was intended to demonstrate the potential for high-speed passenger service. Despite its innovative approach, the project was more of a marketing gimmick than a viable commercial solution for rail travel.American-Rails.com+1
Challenges
Despite its impressive performance, the Black Beetle faced several challenges that hindered its commercial viability:- Noise: The jet engines produced significant noise, which was disruptive to nearby communities.
- Fuel Costs: Operating a train on jet fuel was not economically sustainable.
- Braking Issues: Stopping a high-speed train safely posed significant challenges.
- Track Limitations: Existing rail infrastructure was not designed to handle the extreme speeds achieved by the Black Beetle.
2
Ultimately, the M-497 was retired in 1984 after serving as a testbed for high-speed rail technology. Although it was dismantled, the data collected during its operation contributed to the understanding of high-speed rail travel.
2
The M-497 Black Beetle remains a fascinating chapter in the history of rail transportation, showcasing the innovative spirit of the era and the challenges of integrating new technologies into existing systems.
Photon440
Well-Known Member
- Local time
- 5:27 AM
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2012
- Messages
- 18,696
- Reaction score
- 34,847
- Location
- Surrey, B.C. Canada
I can see that the noise would be a significant problem. But the statement:
Fuel Costs: Operating a train on jet fuel was not economically sustainable.
doesn't make sense to me. One of the selling points to airlines when jets were introduced was the lower cost of jet fuel, basically modified kerosene.
Photon440
Well-Known Member
- Local time
- 5:27 AM
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2012
- Messages
- 18,696
- Reaction score
- 34,847
- Location
- Surrey, B.C. Canada
Yes, both Av gas and diesel cost more than jet fuel. That's why so many diesel forums ask if you can use jet fuel in a diesel engine.
Interesting experiment, like jet dragsters. The GE J-47 was one of the first really efficient pure jets, mostly because of its axial-flow, high compression ratio, and advancing metallurgy. (The limiting factor for thrust is the -are you ready for this proper acronym -TIT!! Ok, Turbine Inlet Temp. In other words, the disc with blades that is bathed in 2000C + temps. ) It also powered the F-86, B-47, etc. and occasionally, I think, had an afterburner.
As to fuel consumption, despite a semester of Thermodynamics, I cannot explain the apparently exponential increase in fuel consumption of pure jet (no fan) vs recip. My Cessna 210, 540 cubic inch, turbocharged, burned 12 gal per hour (gph) at 155knots true airspeed, or at 6.5lb/gal, about 70 pounds per hour. In the F-16, no afterburner, 1200pph, at idle!, and up to 20,000pph in full a/b at low altitude. It only carried 6900lb internally...not very long at full a/b. Afterburners use the remaining 70% of the oxygen in the exhaust, but very inefficiently: about 60% more thrust for 4 times the fuel consumption. And i cannot explain why fuel consumption remains relatively constant in a recip, but decreases significantly in a jet. At, 50,000 feet (do not ask if this was legal) at 0.92Mach or about 520 knots true airspeed, it burned 16-1800 pph, very efficiently.
A turbofan greatly increases efficiency in the mid-speed range, airliner speeds. All contemporary fighters are afterburning turbofans, very efficient in cruise, with ability to instantly quadruple the thrust if needed for an air combat "engagement" . Yes thats what we call a dogfight. Then there is the term...pirouette...borrowed from...ballet!
Back to trains, the French turbo trains were very effective, and fuel efficient enough. Miserable acceleration though. Fuel non-economy was the limiting factor in the Chrysler turbocar of the 50s, all the energy went out the exhaust.
As to fuel consumption, despite a semester of Thermodynamics, I cannot explain the apparently exponential increase in fuel consumption of pure jet (no fan) vs recip. My Cessna 210, 540 cubic inch, turbocharged, burned 12 gal per hour (gph) at 155knots true airspeed, or at 6.5lb/gal, about 70 pounds per hour. In the F-16, no afterburner, 1200pph, at idle!, and up to 20,000pph in full a/b at low altitude. It only carried 6900lb internally...not very long at full a/b. Afterburners use the remaining 70% of the oxygen in the exhaust, but very inefficiently: about 60% more thrust for 4 times the fuel consumption. And i cannot explain why fuel consumption remains relatively constant in a recip, but decreases significantly in a jet. At, 50,000 feet (do not ask if this was legal) at 0.92Mach or about 520 knots true airspeed, it burned 16-1800 pph, very efficiently.
A turbofan greatly increases efficiency in the mid-speed range, airliner speeds. All contemporary fighters are afterburning turbofans, very efficient in cruise, with ability to instantly quadruple the thrust if needed for an air combat "engagement" . Yes thats what we call a dogfight. Then there is the term...pirouette...borrowed from...ballet!
Back to trains, the French turbo trains were very effective, and fuel efficient enough. Miserable acceleration though. Fuel non-economy was the limiting factor in the Chrysler turbocar of the 50s, all the energy went out the exhaust.
PS: since this is a trains forum: the Budd RDC (rail diesel car) was last produced around 1955. They are STILL running!! Our WES express here has 2 in reserve. This was the only successful DMU(diesel multiple unit) produced in the USA. There was a feeble attempt in the 70s to produce a successor, which was not successful, in part because of union demands for a conductor in the cockpit. Two there, plus a conductor...well... the economics are self-evident. A search of AI for self propelled rain cars does not find this example.
Several commuter lines use DMUs, including the WES here in PDX, but most are European designs assembled here, and not really comfortable for long distance service.
Several commuter lines use DMUs, including the WES here in PDX, but most are European designs assembled here, and not really comfortable for long distance service.
To lessen the confusion: the thrust requirement to generate lift is constant, but the drag decreases exponentially with altitude, requiring less thrust to compensate. Until around 0.75 Mach, when drag from compressibility begins
....
....
Photon440
Well-Known Member
- Local time
- 5:27 AM
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2012
- Messages
- 18,696
- Reaction score
- 34,847
- Location
- Surrey, B.C. Canada
The J-47 was revolutionary, being able to fly at high altitudes, fairly weather resistant and with over 30,000 produced, was quite popular. However, it also had a lot of faults. One of which was a very slow spool up time, taking anywhere from twelve to twenty seconds to go from idle to full thrust. That was the reason that the B-47 bomber had to use a landing parachute. This enabled the pilot to keep the engines at part throttle during landing and still not exceed desired speeds so that in case of a go-around the thrust would come on much sooner.
I don't think they quite reached 2000C temperatures on the engine, the exhaust temperature limit at military power was 1275f. Most turbojets cool the exhaust turbine blades by being hollow and pumping cooling air through them - even the Jumo 004 used in Germany during WWII used this principle.
I can't imagine why that turbo train used pure jet power like that, other turbine trains were based on the turboprop principle, i.e. taking torque from an output shaft rather than relying on thrust alone.
Similar threads
