Added a new power plant to my '13 F350, pushing a modest 65,000 HP now... - Page 2

General » General Discussion

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Added a new power plant to my '13 F350, pushing a modest 65,000 HP now... (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 9/3/2013 9:22:44 PM EDT

[#1]

Nice shirt op, fits well.

Posted: 9/3/2013 9:40:23 PM EDT

[#2]

Quote History

Quoted:

Nice shirt op, fits well.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Nice shirt op, fits well.

You know how I know you're gay?

Posted: 9/4/2013 2:22:22 AM EDT

[#3]

Quote History

Quoted:

35 x 6.7 = 234.5 x 60 = 14070 lbs per hour.

Not an expert on that type, but that sounds like an awful lot (?) And no, it would't give you good mileage even at 600 mph.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
With that much power, the 35 gallons per minute might tranlate into a fairly decent MPG

35 x 6.7 = 234.5 x 60 = 14070 lbs per hour.

Not an expert on that type, but that sounds like an awful lot (?) And no, it would't give you good mileage even at 600 mph.

Not far fetched, its based on a CF6-50 51,000-54,000 lbs of thrust class engines.

A single F100-220 (F-15/16 engines) can burn around 45,000+ lbs/hr. Works out to 112 gallons per minute.

A single TF33-P103 (B-52H) makes a measly 17,000 lbs of thrust at roughly 8,000 lbs/hr (I'm watching other gauges at TRT) burns like 20 gallons per minute.

Posted: 9/4/2013 2:37:06 AM EDT

[#4]

Quote History

Quoted:
With that much power, the 35 gallons per minute might tranlate into a fairly decent MPG

View Quote

Yeah, but Chrysler had some lag issues with their version, driving in stop and go traffic would probably suck.

Posted: 9/4/2013 2:51:07 AM EDT

[#5]

Good luck getting over RR tracks or a speed bump with that trailer.

Posted: 9/4/2013 3:31:11 AM EDT

[#6]

That should stop the tailgaters.

Posted: 9/4/2013 4:38:41 AM EDT

[#7]

Quote History

Quoted:

backstory?

View Quote

Back story is I saw a Royal Caribbean Ship just sitting there unattended, so I busted out my crescent wrench and screwdriver I had in my back pocket and pulled this bitch out.

We brokered a deal for the sale of the Turbine and Power Turbine (large container in the background) from a closed plant to a power company overseas. This particular turbine will be picked up this week after another turbine arrives and we swap the turbines over from maintenance dolly and shipping container.

So I will have a chance to run two turbines but just for a short while!!!

Posted: 9/4/2013 4:40:05 AM EDT

[#8]

Quote History

Quoted:

Nice shirt op, fits well.

View Quote

Yeah I'm taking the picture and posing in the background all at the same time.....

Posted: 9/4/2013 4:45:10 AM EDT

[#9]

Quote History

Quoted:
Good luck with the puny transmission.

View Quote

Keep it in neutral.

Posted: 9/4/2013 4:47:15 AM EDT

[#10]

How many chutes do you have on the truck?

Posted: 9/4/2013 6:42:51 AM EDT

[#11]

Check your hitch. It may not be rated for more than 550 mph.

Whatcha gonna put that li'l lawnmower engine into?

Posted: 9/4/2013 6:44:48 AM EDT

[#12]

Bring that shit to Texas, we could use another 50 MWs of electricity.

TXL

Posted: 9/4/2013 6:54:32 AM EDT

[#13]

Quote History

Quoted:

Not far fetched, its based on a CF6-50 51,000-54,000 lbs of thrust class engines.

A single F100-220 (F-15/16 engines) can burn around 45,000+ lbs/hr. Works out to 112 gallons per minute.

A single TF33-P103 (B-52H) makes a measly 17,000 lbs of thrust at roughly 8,000 lbs/hr (I'm watching other gauges at TRT) burns like 20 gallons per minute.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
With that much power, the 35 gallons per minute might tranlate into a fairly decent MPG

35 x 6.7 = 234.5 x 60 = 14070 lbs per hour.

Not an expert on that type, but that sounds like an awful lot (?) And no, it would't give you good mileage even at 600 mph.

Not far fetched, its based on a CF6-50 51,000-54,000 lbs of thrust class engines.

A single F100-220 (F-15/16 engines) can burn around 45,000+ lbs/hr. Works out to 112 gallons per minute.

A single TF33-P103 (B-52H) makes a measly 17,000 lbs of thrust at roughly 8,000 lbs/hr (I'm watching other gauges at TRT) burns like 20 gallons per minute.

You made me look it up.

. You might be able to make the engine burn that much at sea level with full power and afterburner, but it's not applicable to real life.

Apparently, An F16 gets around 1500 lbs per hour at .85 cruise @ ~30,000 msl. Much more reasonable.
He burns 223 gallons to go ~ 600 miles, so 2.69 mpg.

Posted: 9/4/2013 7:17:27 AM EDT

[#14]

But an F-16 cruising .85 Mach straight and level at FL350 doesn't do what it was built for.

Posted: 9/4/2013 7:22:12 AM EDT

[#15]

"Found a huge ass jet engine at a yard sale. I'll go back with my perfectly made huge ass jet engine trailer and snatch that sucker up"

Posted: 9/4/2013 7:28:58 AM EDT

[#16]

That'll definatly pull a premium a week before race wars.

Now go get a couple of the big bottles of NAWS!

Posted: 9/4/2013 7:32:59 AM EDT

[#17]

Quote History

Quoted:

Yeah ten miles...

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
One minute at 600mph will get you pretty far.

Yeah ten miles...

Posted: 9/4/2013 9:11:37 AM EDT

[#18]

Quote History

Quoted:

"Found a huge ass jet engine at a yard sale. I'll go back with my perfectly made huge ass jet engine trailer and snatch that sucker up"

View Quote

What still pisses me off to this day was I had a chance to buy a jet engine dirt cheap a few years back. Of course I didn't buy it...

It was a small jet engine from the late 1950s that I believe was used as a starter. It was still in it's shipping container. For whatever reason a farmer had it and it was sold at his estate auction, it brought $100. I doubt it ran, but it would still be an interesting item to have around.

Posted: 9/4/2013 10:33:22 AM EDT

[#19]

Quote History

Quoted:

You made me look it up.

. You might be able to make the engine burn that much at sea level with full power and afterburner, but it's not applicable to real life.

Apparently, An F16 gets around 1500 lbs per hour at .85 cruise @ ~30,000 msl. Much more reasonable.
He burns 223 gallons to go ~ 600 miles, so 2.69 mpg.

View Quote

Those numbers are indeed at max power to show that the OP's numbers of 14070 lbs/hr aren't far fetched.

I'm glad I made you do some work

. Here's your reward, you can watch along during my takeoff and figure out how much fuel we burnt

. Cloud ceiling was low so they wouldn't allow us to do a max climb

Posted: 9/4/2013 10:43:28 AM EDT

[#20]

Quote History

Quoted:
Pratt & Whitney makes better engines.

View Quote

What you're smoking, GET OFF IT!!!!!!

Posted: 9/4/2013 10:44:50 AM EDT

[#21]

I hope Al Gore gets to see that from the back of his limo one day.

Posted: 9/4/2013 10:45:13 AM EDT

[#22]

Quote History

Quoted:
GE sucks. And as A Solar Turbines employee my opinion is completely unbiased

View Quote

GE makes the second best high bypass turbofan engine (CF6 which this is based on). It floggs the shit out of that Puff and Wheeze junk.

Posted: 9/4/2013 11:11:32 AM EDT

[#23]

And off I go on an hour-long wikipedia sojourn into the world of jet engines....

Posted: 9/4/2013 1:36:04 PM EDT

[#24]

Quote History

Quoted:
Those numbers are indeed at max power to show that the OP's numbers of 14070 lbs/hr aren't far fetched.

I'm glad I made you do some work

. Here's your reward, you can watch along during my takeoff and figure out how much fuel we burnt

. Cloud ceiling was low so they wouldn't allow us to do a max climb

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmsP-HE2c7Q&feature=youtu.be

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

You made me look it up.

. You might be able to make the engine burn that much at sea level with full power and afterburner, but it's not applicable to real life.

Apparently, An F16 gets around 1500 lbs per hour at .85 cruise @ ~30,000 msl. Much more reasonable.

He burns 223 gallons to go ~ 600 miles, so 2.69 mpg.

Those numbers are indeed at max power to show that the OP's numbers of 14070 lbs/hr aren't far fetched.

I'm glad I made you do some work

. Here's your reward, you can watch along during my takeoff and figure out how much fuel we burnt

. Cloud ceiling was low so they wouldn't allow us to do a max climb

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmsP-HE2c7Q&feature=youtu.be

I may not know how much fuel that was, but I am pretty sure I know where you burned it. SHHI/ Travis?

Posted: 9/4/2013 2:19:00 PM EDT

[#25]

Quote History

Quoted:

GE makes the second best high bypass turbofan engine (CF6 which this is based on). It floggs the shit out of that Puff and Wheeze junk.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
GE sucks. And as A Solar Turbines employee my opinion is completely unbiased

GE makes the second best high bypass turbofan engine (CF6 which this is based on). It floggs the shit out of that Puff and Wheeze junk.

Yeah right. That's why my company has the dominant market share in our class size

Posted: 9/5/2013 7:49:02 AM EDT

[#26]

Oh shit, It's redneck pod racing time!

If the truck wasn't coming this afternoon to pick up one, I would have some fun and line them up parallel with chains attaching to my truck behind it for a decent pod racer picture...

Posted: 9/5/2013 12:12:21 PM EDT

[#27]

Quote History

Quoted:

Yeah right. That's why my company has the dominant market share in our class size

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
GE sucks. And as A Solar Turbines employee my opinion is completely unbiased

GE makes the second best high bypass turbofan engine (CF6 which this is based on). It floggs the shit out of that Puff and Wheeze junk.

Yeah right. That's why my company has the dominant market share in our class size

In my line of work, ease of maint goes in this order.

1. RR
2. PW JT8
3. GE
4. CFM
5. PW (2000 and 4000 series engine)
6. V2500

Reliability

1. RR
2. GE
3. CFM
4. PW (2000 and 4000 series)
5. PW JT8
6. V2500

Posted: 9/5/2013 12:19:04 PM EDT

[#28]

80,000 lbs of pure sex thrust!!!!

Posted: 9/5/2013 2:52:39 PM EDT

[#29]

Quote History

Quoted:

In my line of work, ease of maint goes in this order.

1. RR
2. PW JT8
3. GE
4. CFM
5. PW (2000 and 4000 series engine)
6. V2500

Reliability

1. RR
2. GE
3. CFM
4. PW (2000 and 4000 series)
5. PW JT8
6. V2500

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
GE sucks. And as A Solar Turbines employee my opinion is completely unbiased

GE makes the second best high bypass turbofan engine (CF6 which this is based on). It floggs the shit out of that Puff and Wheeze junk.

Yeah right. That's why my company has the dominant market share in our class size

In my line of work, ease of maint goes in this order.

1. RR
2. PW JT8
3. GE
4. CFM
5. PW (2000 and 4000 series engine)
6. V2500

Reliability

1. RR
2. GE
3. CFM
4. PW (2000 and 4000 series)
5. PW JT8
6. V2500

The engine he posted, and the ones my company makes, don't fly. Obviously you are not into the industrial turbines. I was being sarcastic about GE sucking, but if I were to have to be next to a genset or compressor package that was about to crater, I would much rather be next to one of ours as opposed to one that was based off of an aircraft design. Our compressors are solid and heavy, designed for what they are used for.

As far as reliability, our C40's are legendary. I know of one in particular that has over 160,000 hours on it and still runs fine.