I think I'm done with turbos.
>>29125811I've barely gotten started.
>>29125811reminder if its not boosted its not shit
Simple life is best life.
>>29125841Is her erection holding the table up?
>>29125846I wish.
The candle that burns twice as bright last half as long
True genius isn't complexity, true genius is a highly refined idea streamlined to elegant simplicity.
turbos are fun.
counterpoint: noises are cool
>>29126071What you're describing is a turbocharged setup. You only see it as this massively complex thing because you're a wrenchlet faggot that gets all his info off YouTube tranny videos.
>>29126071This is what an idiot's idea of genius is. There is nothing elegant or simple about a combustion engine.
>>29126254>There is nothing elegant or simple about a combustion engine.Wrenchlet ULTRA TEMU RICER
>>29126254Nah they're pretty elegant.>bu bu but you need computers 'n' shit to make it work better than a 60s engineComputers are also elegant.
>>29126262An 1890s combustion engine isn't "simple" either, relative to riding a horse or a bicycle. It's because of geniuses, that we complicated technology to make our lives better.
>>29126266wtf are you babbling about, raising a horse and then making a compatible carriage is considerably more complicated than just making a piston engine. Both in cost, time, and replicateable expertise. A guy raising horses can only raise so many horses. And engineer who designed an engine can design an engine that gets manufactured 100 times or 1 million times.
>>29126071Simplest form of engine is a turbojet
>>29126276It is not, it's just the most efficient. It is far from the simplest.
>>29126278It’s very simple, just tight tolerance.
>>29126283No, it's not simple. And "tight tolerances" is codeword for all of the delicate maintenance and complex diagnostics you have to do.>dude just put on your IR googles and look for fanblade stress, it's very simple
>>29126287Can you tell me why a simple turbo fan isn’t simple?
>>29125811bread on turbo>>29126071niggas like you will say a turbo is too complicated but then put a whole extra cylinder head on your engine
>>29126288>can you tell me why a turbofan with the material science of a rocket but the lifecycle of a motorcycle engine isn't simpleYes. You would, in fact, be very disappointed in owning a (in theory) practical turbojet powered car.
>>29126297Oh yeah it would suck to own but it’s still a very simple engine to make, which was the entire conversation.
>>29126300No, the material science of making a jet engine is far from simple. The only reason airplanes do it is because the extra investment is worth the efficiency over multi-thousand mile journeys done ever day, because fuel costs. And they don't care about the added maintenance costs because it is an industry that is already hyperbolically focused on perfect maintenance. It is not simple.
they aren't done with you
>>29126304It is simple cause the shit spin and make cablooey. Much easier than making a piston design. This is not talking about maintaining it you fucking retard.
>>29126312>It is simple cause the shit spin and make cablooeyPistons do this.>This is not talking about maintaining it you fucking retard.Yes it is. Put the IR goggles on and check the fans.
>>29126315Turbos fans do it with fewer moving parts.Therefore it’s simpler
>>29126316While requiring more sensors, more redundant parts like pumps, more complex maintenance equipment, more frequent replacement parts over equivalent piston engines (which are very complex to make), etc.A better comparison here would be piston engines in cars to piston engines in motorcycles. You think all airplane engines are only held to the standard motorcycle engines are. If you thought so, you'd claim motorcycle engines are better, except outside of buying a motorcycle and only driving it a few thousand miles a year before selling it 5-10 years later, they aren't.
>>29126321>wall of copeJust go to bed kiddo
>>29126325>short post of copeThat wasn't a wall, that was a good response.
>>29126328
>>29126329>IMGLOLIt was the best you could do.
>>29126340There is no point arguing with your idiot ass
>>29126341It's a good thing you haven't made an argument yet, then.
>>29126321okay now make a piston engine that doesn't use literally anything other than pistons
>>29126365Jet engines use more than fans.
>>29126283Please point to the part of this engine you feel is not complex.Really the simplest would be a pulse or ramjet
>>29126374Spinny bits
>>29126376Turbine blades are more complex than a piston head. What you're looking for is an engine with no moving parts.
The market will always gravitate towards the path of the least resistence, by results the piston engine is the simplest design as it is able to survive the constant change in regulations and shifts in trends. Mind you, it is so uncomplicated the vast majority of planes run them. The only time a plane would run a jet engine is when it needs to. You still see newly built military planes use piston engines. If the retard above still want to argue about jet engines are simplier, no plane owner is DIYing their jet engine overhaul. Actions > words, life and death more so the case.
>>29126399I agree with you completely, except I don't actually know if it is legal to mod your Cessna to take a J85.
>>29126370so you have a piston engine that only uses pistons, right?
>>29126403Not a cessna but plenty of people jet swap their planes and died in the past. Long EZ with that sleek design and tail mounted engine, there are some horiffic accidents on those jet swaps. But either way, you aren't getting your hands on any military jet engines unless they durectly sell the plane to you, and most of those cases are usually to ex-military guys or research institudes.Civilian jet swaps usually come from the Czechs
>>29126570Forgot to add to the legality part.It will be under the home built experimental segment. You need to go through the FAA and they will send a wizard to go through the air worthiness process with you. My suggestion is never do it unless you have retired from lockheed and you got 6-7 digits of retirement money to burn
>>29126409What else would it have?A crankshaft, conrod and piston is all you need
>/o/ doesn't know the difference between a turbojet and a turbofan, using the terms interchangiblyStick to the land locked vehicles, retards.
>>29126409So you have a turbine engine that only uses a turbine?>>29126739It's literally just a turbojet with a ducted fan on the front
>>29126744Do you call superchargers turbos? They both just force air into the engines, so they're the same thing, right?
>>29126312turbines and wankels are good examples why less moving parts doesn't automatically mean simpler
>>29126786wankels are simpler. just have to resurface the entire engine regularly.
>>29126756Weren't turbos back in the day called turbosuperchargers.
>>29126276>Simplest form of engine is a turbojetYou mean pulsejet. Technically ramjet, but fulfilling the requirements for one to work is tricky without the preceedings.
>>29126756turbos are called turbos because they use a turbineturbojet engines are called turbojets because they use a turbineturbofan engines are called turbofans because they use a turbojet to drive a ducted fan
>>29126593but those aren't pistons, so that other anon's point is null
