Helicopter engine powered motorcycle
Y2K motorcycle
February 28th, 2010 by adminLeave a reply »
Advertisement
Leave a reply »
- Recent Posts
- George Boyd and Randy Taylor bmx
- Diamondback Skin Dog BMX
- Barmasters (BMX) “THE ANSWER” Featuring Hannibal * Prophecy * Gator * Jay Black & The Administrator
- Clean your Motorcycle – Part 4
- for? lifting dogs, dogs v mate? r or after? s the bitch is actually bleeding on his cycle?
- BMX how to 180.wmv
- metal bikes – dead bang sean burns
- Jud Rides Mountain Bike
- Levi Leipheimer 2005 Cycling Video Montage
- 2010 Oddball Sport-Touring Motorcycle Shootout: Ducati vs Honda vs Kawasaki
- Recent Comments
- JDKG on Diamondback Skin Dog BMX
- janderson505 on Clean your Motorcycle – Part 4
- romanbully on for? lifting dogs, dogs v mate? r or after? s the bitch is actually bleeding on his cycle?
- suzy q on for? lifting dogs, dogs v mate? r or after? s the bitch is actually bleeding on his cycle?
- WIZZY IZA NEWF! on for? lifting dogs, dogs v mate? r or after? s the bitch is actually bleeding on his cycle?
- jiveroxiv on Clean your Motorcycle – Part 4
- TKS on for? lifting dogs, dogs v mate? r or after? s the bitch is actually bleeding on his cycle?
- valleyfever on Clean your Motorcycle – Part 4
- puppylover on for? lifting dogs, dogs v mate? r or after? s the bitch is actually bleeding on his cycle?
- n00bSLicer on Clean your Motorcycle – Part 4
@Dcardosogomes no one can ride it. how does it win.
who kept on disliking everyones comment no one is talkin shit
Not at or near sea level. They are MUCH less efficient at idle. They only match the efficiency of a reciprocating engine when the vehicle is at full speed.
damn rich people and there rich toys, sucks being poor god damnit lol
only at full throttle
at idle they burn allot of fuel
gas turbine engines are abundantly more efficient than resiprocating engines.
Haha. I’d probably die of a heart attack just starting it up.
@xLilxDemyx
Good point, I would never get one because i would kill myself on it within an hour.
I would get one of these if it got better than 4 miles per gallon.
It would barely reach 350kmh. No aerodynamics at all, just a fail piece of shit.
No! Tomahawk wins becuse reaches 700k over!
@PuertoRicanFlametibi
Tomahawk doesn’t even exist
it was a failure even as an useless prototype
@kelindoserUruguayo
la Tomahawk ni siquiera existe , fue tan solo un prototipo que ni siquiera se podia manejar
esa es la moto ke sale en la pelicula ” torke! verdad ??
es mas rapida ke la dodge tomahawk??
tomahawk is better.
“slowerpig81″ and “Bullzeye95″ need to hook up and get a hotel room together and discuss forced air propulsion methods…haha…just kidding guys, that was an informative back and forth conversation..I didnt know half of that…
ВОТ ЕСЛИБЫ САМОМУ ПОСИДЕТЬ БЫ!!!!!!!!!
@Bullzeye95: Yeah, that’s it. Most people call any type of gas turbine engine a “jet engine” because they look and sound similarly.
Your information is excellent and correct. I think we may be quibbling over the definition of jet engine. I was using the colloquial definition defined by the standard post-piston era engine design that uses a ducted intake and bladed compressor to direct air into a detonation chamber where atomized kerosene (jet fuel, as opposed to AVGAS, another distinction) is ignited in the jet stream and directed through a gas turbine that powers the compressor. Thrust or no thrust, the design is the same
Yeah I think if you can afford this you should be in your own house. With a wife, presumably.
Actually, let me edit that. Not all jet engines are gas turbines. Turbojets and turbofans, as well as some obscure ones like propfans, are gas turbines. Some jets like ramjets and pulsejets are not gas turbines. The point is that a jet engine produces thrust, and a turboshaft engine provides torque and no thrust. Gas turbine engine does not equal jet engine.
Doesn’t have a operable clutch. It’s an auto.
@Bullzeye95: No, a turboshaft engine is a type of gas turbine engine. A jet engine is also a gas turbine engine, but a jet engine is defined as providing thrust by discharging a high velocity jet of gas into the surrounding air, which a turboshaft does not do. It provides no thrust. A turboprop engine, also not considered a jet engine, may provide a small amount of thrust but like a turboshaft it primarily provides torque to a propeller.
The name of the Jet Ranger just sounds good.
You are mostly correct. But turboshafts are still “jet engines”. Why do you suppose they call it the Bell Jet Ranger? You’re confusing the meaning of the term.
The “jet” in jet engine refers to the dense stream of highly compressed, ducted air into which the fuel is injected and ignited. This “jet” of compressed air is what makes it a jet engine possible. Turboprops, turbojets, and turboshafts all use the same principle and can all be fairly called “jet engines”.
how ironic a hearse comes by lmao