crazy idea...afterburners?
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 419
Likes: 0
From: Los Angeles, CA
'05 C55 AMG
crazy idea...afterburners?
ok so someone has probably already thought of this and there's probably a very good reason why it isn't done, but i know that military jets use afterburners to give them a speed boost...essentially pouring raw jet fuel into the exhaust and igniting it.
now theoretically, if you did the same with a car, sprayed fuel into the exhaust and setting it on fire, would you be able to get any kind of performance gains?
yes yes there will be problems with heat and setting cars behind you on fire (which might be a cool way to deal with tailgaters), but besides those "minor" concerns, anything else that stands in the way of using afterburners on a car?
The idea behind an afterburner is to inject fuel directly into the exhaust stream and burn it using this remaining oxygen. This heats and expands the exhaust gases further, and can increase the thrust of a jet engine by 50% or more.
yes yes there will be problems with heat and setting cars behind you on fire (which might be a cool way to deal with tailgaters), but besides those "minor" concerns, anything else that stands in the way of using afterburners on a car?
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,597
Likes: 0
From: San Francisco, CA
1996 C36 AMG, 1995 Volvo 850 Turbowagon
no really.. u don't generate thrust with the air coming thru the exhaust.
and.. u can already get backfires with ur car without adding anything. remove the cat and u can probably get backfires on wot whenever the car shifts.. u see this quite often on racecars
and.. u can already get backfires with ur car without adding anything. remove the cat and u can probably get backfires on wot whenever the car shifts.. u see this quite often on racecars
Member
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 119
Likes: 2
From: California
MB
Like steve_s said, jets depend on thrust (that is, fast-backward-moving masses of air) to propel them forward. Of all the reasons why afterburners shouldn't be done/aren't feasible on cars, one stands out - anything thrust-powered, and therefore anything that could make use of afterburners, is horribly inefficient when compared to a vehicle that can generate motion by rotating its wheels. You're much much much better off saving that extra fuel you would be dumping into the afterburner, and instead generating more power inside the engine.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,597
Likes: 0
From: San Francisco, CA
1996 C36 AMG, 1995 Volvo 850 Turbowagon
rudolf diesel sorta did the same thing if u think about it. he said why is otto's cycle so frigg'n complicated.. gotta inject the fuel right before the intake port (port injection, newer cars should have direct injection) and gotta time the whole ignition with an electrical spark.. let me do something else.
so, rudolf diesel designed an engine that has no spark plug, intakes air and compresses it, and then injects the fuel directly into the chamber with the compressed air. it is the heat of the compressed air that ignites the fuel in a diesel engine. it is more efficient than a gas engine.
pouring fuel onto hot air...
anyway...
so, rudolf diesel designed an engine that has no spark plug, intakes air and compresses it, and then injects the fuel directly into the chamber with the compressed air. it is the heat of the compressed air that ignites the fuel in a diesel engine. it is more efficient than a gas engine.
pouring fuel onto hot air...
anyway...
Last edited by steve s; Oct 26, 2005 at 05:48 AM.
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
