It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What if Boeing and other Aerospace Companies Created more Auto Engines?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Personally, I might feel more confident driving or riding with a Boeing auto engine. GM, Ford, and Chrysler are excellent, but frequently aerospace companies come up with ideas out of this world.




posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 08:33 PM
link   
I totally agree with you there!
I've known pilots that have flown the same aircraft their whole aviation life and have NEVER had a catastrophic falure. Sure wear, tear happen and maintenence is required but I'm only 28 and I have been through an almost uncountable ammount of cars in my driving time. (Never had a 'writeoff' accident just to clarify, only ditching off icy roads, and an unnessicary noise complaint..... hehehe...)

But On the other hand what would happen if we maintained our auto engines the way aircraft engines are, and put the same quality fuel through them????



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by GreatTech
Personally, I might feel more confident driving or riding with a Boeing auto engine. GM, Ford, and Chrysler are excellent, but frequently aerospace companies come up with ideas out of this world.



Hmmm Its a question of $$$$ more than anything else. The regulations required for an ETOPS rated GE-90 would price thier engines way out of the realm for all but the most richest people. I agree that they would be very innovative but cost is key for auto production.


Cug

posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Your wish has been answered.


Honda is an aerospace company
world.honda.com...

Saab is an aerospace company that builds cars.
www.saab.se...
But General Motors bought the car division outright in 2000 so the connection is in name only right now.

Speaking of GM it owned Hughes Aircraft

And Volvo builds aircraft engines
www.volvo.com...

But in this case Ford bought the the car division in 1999.

And speaking of Ford, it had an aerospace division from the 50's to the 80's

Lets see there is DaimlerChrysler Aerospace, BMW builds some aircraft engines, and on and on.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 10:13 PM
link   
The modern internal combustion engine has reached it peak pretty much. Formula1 actually pushes the aerosapce envelope these days as they have 1 year cycles versus 10 year dev programs in the air. A modern racing engine is about it - they eak out a few % each year but mainly from friction reduction and not anything related to the comubstion process.


Turbines - too noisy and not flexible enough for auto needs.... Now the air guys to build big A turbines for the power industry....



posted on Jan, 7 2006 @ 02:11 AM
link   
I think the reason being most aircraft engines are like that, is mainly for the rigorous examinations.

If you were in a car and your engine fails, you'll keep on moving unless you brake. In a plane, you'd plummet towards the Earth. If cars were subject to such scrutiny before being driven, I'm willing to bet they'd be much like aircraft engines.



posted on Jan, 7 2006 @ 08:34 AM
link   
I did hear of one aircraft company (i forget where, will look up some sources later), that is doing kind of the exact opposite. They are putting some sort of deisel engine in small aircraft with almost the same success rates as traditional rotary engines. Anyone else hear of this???

Appearently they are trying to bring general aviation to the general public. Even aquiring your pilots licence is somewhat of a "thing for the more wealthy" due to costs and licencings (and I could just imagine the insurance...). Notice I did not say a Thing for the ritch, but average Joe working at his 9-5 job trying to raise his family it is far out of reach. (Unless you do your banking through the same people as the BUSH ADMINISTRATION.... lol (not trying to start a political thing, just wish I HAD HIS BANKER ON MY SIDE!!!)



posted on Jan, 7 2006 @ 08:51 AM
link   
There are thousands of moving parts in an internal combustion engine and there is one in a jet engine, that means that failure is much, much more unlikely.
Also car manufacturers build cars to last for a set period of about 5-10 years (with the exception of the old Rolls Royce) where as aeroplane manufacturers builds to last ~25 years. This built in obsolence.
I don't think that the aerospace companies could build anything better then the main car manufacturers for the same price. If you want a car that will last 25+ yrs then you would pay a whole lot more.



posted on Jan, 7 2006 @ 09:12 AM
link   
The only one problem is that Boeing and Airbus doesn't make engines at all. Engines are made by engine manufacturers like GE, P&W or Rolls-Royce.



posted on Jan, 7 2006 @ 09:13 AM
link   
My company doesn't build engines; as a matter of fact, we don't build much at all.

We design airplanes, build parts of the fuselage, and act as systems integrator. When we sell an airplane, typically we allow the customer to pick the appropriate engine, since the four major engine builders (General Electric, Rolls-Turbomeca, SNECMA, and Pratt & Whitney) design new engines or modify existing ones for the airframe in question.

Typically, though, when a company gets outside its core competency, it does not do a job as well as others might; you might want to look at Ricardo's Law for some further input on this. In the late 70's Grumman, who had a long history of building naval aircraft, decided to get into the municipal bus business with by buying and "improving" the FlXible. It was a disaster.



posted on Jan, 7 2006 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by jta79
I did hear of one aircraft company (i forget where, will look up some sources later), that is doing kind of the exact opposite. They are putting some sort of deisel engine in small aircraft with almost the same success rates as traditional rotary engines. Anyone else hear of this???

Appearently they are trying to bring general aviation to the general public. Even aquiring your pilots licence is somewhat of a "thing for the more wealthy" due to costs and licencings (and I could just imagine the insurance...). Notice I did not say a Thing for the ritch, but average Joe working at his 9-5 job trying to raise his family it is far out of reach. (Unless you do your banking through the same people as the BUSH ADMINISTRATION.... lol (not trying to start a political thing, just wish I HAD HIS BANKER ON MY SIDE!!!)



Hardly news, the Germans were using diesel powered aircraft in WW2
home.swipnet.se...



posted on Jan, 7 2006 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Yes, but they had a very low power to weight ratio and they were quite unreliable. I think the advances in technology with using lighter weight and more efficiant materials are the thing that makes this possible.

www.casa.gov.au...

www.findarticles.com...

I know these articles are a little old (2003) but thats a big difference from world war II.



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 09:43 PM
link   
I own a Mazda Rotary car, and have visited THIS SITE for ideas.

Some interesting aircraft links.

Some pics of what happens when a piston engine in an aircraft fails,
Broken Crank shaft
Dropped Valve
Text descibing the difference between a rotary and piston engine in aircraft, HERE

Plenty of other links.



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 08:38 PM
link   
Chrysler tested some turbine cars in the early 60's to see if it was practical. With all the advances in technology I'm suprised someone hasn't designed an electric/turbine car. It's amazing how small a turbine engine can be made and coupled with a decent generator/motor combination, it might give current conventional engines a run for the money.

www.fourforty.com...



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 08:43 PM
link   
we would have chemtrails from cars



new topics




 
0

log in

join