If they use the same engine to power both the wheels and the propeller, it's obvious that the engine's energy will be split between the wheels and the propeller. The propeller is always less efficient for propulsion than the wheels. Therefore, part of the engine's energy will be transferred from a more efficient mode of propulsion to a less efficient one. This video would be more interesting if they used a second engine.
I don’t think that’s true because airplanes have wheels and propellers and they go so fast they are able to achieve enough speed to go airborne and fly.
On second thought your theory could be tested by installing the propeller in a reverse direction. In testing if the car goes forward, your theory is correct however if the car travels backwards. You will be proven incorrect.
they should strap some powerfulll drone motors , they are small so you can have a lot there, also the motor and the battery is much smaller than any combustion engine
They actually mounted the propellor to 'push' instead of 'pull'. They mounted it in such a way that the part that would be 'leading' into the air was actually 'trailing'.
@@Boodieman72Yes, there have been many. The biggest was Howard Hughes H-4 Spruce Goose with 10 engines. A notable USAF one was the B-36 with six pusher engines and four jet engines. Google for more.
@@thebolsta yes, but they must build an Inline seven. There IS Not one eixsting and i wanna know how it Sounds. If not for this Project, then for another one as a Main engine.
It isn't the propeller's thrust that's making it hard to stop. It's the momentum of the propeller, which turns the pulley, which moves the belt, that keeps the drive shaft spinning. There's a lot of mass moving very fast in a circle, and it's not easy to stop that quickly.
@@dannydaw59 it's not engine RPM that's the issue. That prop has a huge amount of inertia that's coupled to the driveline. All of that is working against the brakes. With the clutch engaged, he will be getting a small amount of compression braking but nowhere near enough to compete with that giant meat grinder spinning around!
I really don't think it would have any impact on your output torque like you're thinking it would. Your engines flywheel only makes a difference in two scenarios: Your not moving so you have no forward momentum, or if the clutch is engaged. Otherwise the entire weight of your car and it's wheels are acting as a giant flywheel with your cars forward momentum.
Propeller is mounted in the wrong direction, the forward surface is pointing backwards. The thrust goes in the correct direction, but with low efficiency.
That is EXACTLY 💯 what I just noticed !!! They've actually had it the wrong way, and it's actually slowing down the car... The aerodynamic bite into the wind seems wrong, irregardless of metal strip location.
@@rod3134 Nonsense. It is not spinning the wrong way. It is spinning the correct way, but it is a reverse rotation propellor because that is what you want with the standard driveshaft rotation that is in effect even in the third world nation known as Russia. What is happening here is that now the engine is turning a second transmission [Why....?] and powering the flex of a pair of belts, and the resulting drag on the engine is WAY more than the additional thrust. A typical 72 inch general aviation propellor does not spin more than 2700 rpm for reasons of strength, but more than anything so that the propellor tips do not exceed the speed of sound. When that happens, drag and NOISE increases suddenly, and you actually lose thrust. I'm not sure what a driveshaft turns at, but it seems to me to be much simpler to put a properly sized pulley on the driveshaft and prop so that the prop turns around 2700 RPM at redline in first gear, which is what they were doing with the car's transmission. That's why they never went over 60 km/h (36 mph...) in this video.
@@Flies2FLL When he stops the car at 12:00, the propeller rotates clockwise (from behind), metal strip suggest counter clockwise rotation, so at least the propeller rotates in the wrong direction.
@@Flies2FLL Esta bien lo que decis del borde de ataque, pero la hélice tiene un lado cóncavo y otro convexo, si el cóncavo queda hacia el lado del empuje esta pierde eficiencia, es lo mismo con los barcos, fijate que el lado convexo queda hacia el empuje, o popa, y máxima eficacia, y el convexo queda hacia la proa del barco para que este se traslade hacia atras con poca eficacia, ya que no necesita tanto!!
also, 2:51, lovin the Product Placement shot...i remember back when Rolf was merely the 'son of a shepherd' who lived down the street, and now he's built an entire Company...Nana would be proud!
The scariest part isn't that Garage 54 vehicle ,but seeing SWIFT containers in the yard ,back in the states swift truck drivers are more risky than anything 54 puts on the road
I am gen X and something struck me as funny... Garage 54 seems to be the manifestation of me when I would say to myself, "That's too crazy to even consider."
I'm surprised that so many people suggest this, after all, if you add a second engine, it's a pile of mass that will be working on a much less efficient drive, the results will be even worse, people, where were you instead of physics lessons at school?
@@Arthurroo00 The prop engine can be electric and run off the battery. So almost like a hybrid system. The commenter in question didn't specifically suggest that the second engine should be gasoline, so hold your assumptions.
@@TimSlee1 Did you seriously write this? I don't believe it, is this the level of knowledge in society? Batteries have an even worse level of transferring energy into motion than a combustion engine, which means that the entire system would have to be even heavier. Get this into your head: that a propeller transfers energy into motion much worse than wheels, there is no way it can work because propeller needs more energy to generate the same thrust, and until it achieves this it acts as an aerodynamic brake. Seriously, you didn't learn anything from this video?
@@Arthurroo00 "Did you seriously write this? I don't believe it, is this the level of knowledge in society?" 🤓 We can start talking when you stop having an attitude problem.
@@TimSlee1 You don't understand the basic laws of physics, BASIC, a child of 10 years old should understand it already, but it's my "attitude" that's a problem for you haha. Let's talk about life priorities xD
It's the opposite, though. Taking power from the rear wheels and diverting it to a propeller *removes* power than can be used for acceleration and directs it into a propeller that is providing either zero or negative acceleration due to its own inertia and air resistance. Not only that, but the propeller and dedicated drivetrain adds weight to the vehicle, slowing it further. This is an interesting project, but it has no chance whatsoever of accelerating the car faster ;).
@@antibrevity I think I worded that poorly. If you have a high enough power to weight ratio, a propeller can exert force without using up friction with the road, which there is a limited amount of. So you can use more power, albeit not as efficiently as just driving the wheels. Assuming you can spin the propeller fast enough to actually generate thrust. But the mighty Lada, sadly, has nowhere near that much power. So the power losses just make it monumentally slower.
It seems like it, but at 5:50 (1st gear) it does rotate in the correct direction. Maybe in 4th gear it spins so fast that it does more than 1 rotation between 2 video frames.
It spins in the correct direction, watch it when it's moving slowly. The problem is that it takes a significant amount of power to spin that propeller up, especially in it's higher gears. Any power being used to accelerate the propeller is being taken away from the drive wheels, plus there's extra parasitic drag due to the belt and extra transmission
I know lots of others have said this, but it needs a second engine with a good power/weight ratio in order to help. Any time its under hard acceleration, its wasting power on spinning up the propeller, especially when the prop transmission is in higher gears. Not to mention that propellers need to be already spinning at a fast & constant rpm, so it's always operating inefficiently during hard acceleration. What you need is to hold the brakes and get the second engine spinning the prop about as fast as it can, then launch the car
The propeller is acting like a flywheel, that is why it is hard to stop. You don't want additional rotating mass on the transmission, making the engine work harder to accelerate it with every gear change. You want the flywheel (propeller) to be driven by the engine directly so the inertia fights to keep the rpms up, instead of dragging them down. Additionally you can get your thrust up front before sending any power to the wheels. I still think you will ultimately be slower because ground driven is more efficient than propeller driven
Πολυ ομορφη η ιστορια, σε ευχαριστουμε Γιαννη, ημουν και εγω καποτε με μια ορεα γυναικα εξωτερικα και εσωτερικα αλλα δυστηχως την παρατησα και πηδουσα μια αλλι, τελικα η αλλη εβαλε κιλα και εγινε σαν ελεφαντας και μου εβαζε καθε μερα τις φωνες, εχασα τη καλη ευκαιρια και πηδηξα μιαν χοντρη και τωρα το μετανοιωσα πικρα.
The propeller definitely needs its own engine. You got the best acceleration when this engine had only one job, which was spin the wheels. This engine had a limited amount of power. When you gave this engine multiple jobs the energy was split in different directions and less energy was pushing the car forward. One of the directions the energy went was into rotational energy of the propeller. Thus, the propeller was acting like a big flywheel, taking energy from the engine just to spin up. When you were trying to slow down, that same energy went back through the transmission and into the drive shaft and kept the car moving forward, making it harder to brake. Finally, the car was blocking a lot of airflow to the propeller so that only the top half of the propeller would be effective. It would also be an improvement to move the propeller's transmission and driveshaft to the roof.
“Props” for testing this! But of course when you think about why it’s slower it makes sense… since it’s the same power plant it will only succumb to more losses.
13:40 Actually, this just means it has a lot of inertia. it's like strapping a heavy flywheel to your wheels, needs more power to spin up and slow down plus the friction loss from the bearings, pullys, belt/chain or whatever and the gearbox itself.
Regarding braking: It is not a case of the propeller's thrust having a negative effect on the braking, but rather the flywheel effect. At speed, the prop has a lot of kinetic energy stored up and with no way of freewheeling, it will try to continue to drive the car forward via the belts and into the differential. I'd bet that a lot of the belt smoke is actually from your attempts to stop at the end of the run.
That is a reverse rotation propellor, so it can work off the driveshaft. The only thing that this would seem to do is to negate aerodynamic drag that exists behind a moving object. I don't think it is moving fast enough to really add much thrust, but there is extra drag placed on the driveline that the engine has to overcome.
Around the time bicycles were still being experimented-with seriously, there were multiple prototypes which directed crank power ONLY to a rear-end propeller. The claims were from identical top speed to increased. I saw a test here on youtube just 1 year ago of a guy re-creating one of these bicycles and the top speed actually became slightly HIGHER! The reason for this is even though the efficiency should be & is worse than from tyre contact, if you have any back-blowing wind, even if it's mostly side-ways, you essentially run into an effect akin to cycling on a running treadmill. But likewise forward-facing wind works much against you compared to wheel drive. However the biggest issue (except the danger..) is the acceleration which is always inferior to tyre drive. But, where both drives are used it's simply beneficial and when you have more power than grip it is certainly superior to not having a prop. Still when you run power levels so much that you can't get enough grip even in 4wd. the prop's nature causes too many issues for it to really be viable, biggest issue is these ridiculous levels of power on a prop so close to the ground & surroundings is simply too dangerous, at least as far as liability goes so past 1930s I don't think any official body would even allow this to be used in any kind of racing.
No, it was freewheeling from the forward direction of the car when it wasn't being powered. He did mount the propellor from the backside so it would be developing 'push' instead of 'pull', or if you want to say it a different way, it was mounted so it was propelling the car forward from the rear. It was rurning the same diredtion to make thrust as if it had been mounted on the front of the car. Retired USAF Master Aircraft Technician here. Hope this helps.
@@Colorado_NativeLook at the angle of the blades at 2:29. The propeller is spinning clockwise from the rear when the car is running, just like a fan with blades in that direction, it is going to blow air forwards toward the front of the car, cause the thrust to be going the wrong way. If the propeller was spinning anti clockwise, or the blade was flipped, then it would work like this, but it isn’t like that.
@@HelloFellowDinosaurs Go to 5:34 and look at the propellor. You can see the leading edge, the one that is curved and looks like it might have the metal strip embedded. Now go look at about 6 minute mark when the car is slowing. You can see the prop is spinning in a counter-clockwise direction, when viewed from behind, with the leading edge clearly visible. The prop is clearly turning in the correct direction given its location and orientation on the car. At certain places in the video it looks like it is spinning the wrong way, this is due to its rotation speed and the 'shutter speed' of the camera(s). If you watch TV programs with cars, sometimes it looks like the wheels are rotating in the opposite way the car is traveling.
Overcoming propeller inertia is the problem. You'll need another clutch mechanism so you can bring up the propeller RPM independent of the back wheels. Same for slowing down. Disengage the propeller system so it's angular momentum isn't contributing like a gyroscope to driving the rear wheels. I think that if you can spin up the propeller BEFORE you take off for your 0-60 kmh run, you will get a faster time.
Very interesting concept 😀 Okay, why it won't make an effect: (1) You need a proper aviation engine (e.g. Lyocoming O-360). (2) Driving this propeller through the shaft will only have as a result less power on the wheels and insufficient power on the propeller, making the overall setup way more inefficient. The reason, you need longer braking distance, is because the rotating propeller has still momentum and will keep delivering thrust even if you disengage the clutch. The proper way to test or compare is to completely disconnect the wheels and drive only the propeller via a shaft and not belts; but here, you need 150-200HP to have decent results and an acceleration 0-60MPH below 10s. It takes about ~250m roll for a Cesna 152 to reach 50KNOTS (~90km/h) in about 9 - 11 seconds depending on terrain conditions.
Totally predictable result, wasting power driving the propeller, an inefficient form of propulsion, sapping that available for the wheels a which are a far more efficient form of propulsion. Plus the propeller is back to front.!
You just got to love Siberian ingenuity, that is something that never even crossed my mind and yet it was so interesting to watch. I thought that maybe the prop was on in reverse so creating drag and not thrust but putting the gearbox into reverse disproved that theory.
It's possible that it could be taking longer to accelerate with each gear because of there being so much thrust and said thrust causing the car's backside to buck so much that it's causing drag
I think as some of other watchers pointed below. Propeller acts as flywheel and being so, it it gets harder to accellerate and decelerate. Hence longer times. If he was breaking without being in a gear, he would have stopped earlier.
So the idea is good… but the problem is that you have the propeller rpm locked to the rear tires. Unless the car is traction limited, no matter how hard the propeller spins, it can’t overpower the wheels on the ground. You can see the energy is making a ton of thrust from the exhaust smoke getting blasted… The driveline RPM and the propeller RPM should be disconnected somehow. Doing that on the same engine may be difficult. The easiest way of course is a second engine… even if it’s just a lawnmower engine it would help. The only other way I could think of would be rather then a manual transmission to the prop, you use a CVT or maybe even an automatic, so that the props RPM can very itself with load. The pest way would also be to somehow take the power for this second transmission directly off the crank, but again that would be quite difficult… unless you put the prop on the front of the car and took the power off the front of the engine… that might do the trick.
i think at least part of the reason its so much harder to stop is because at that speed and weight the propellor is basically a flywheel storing energy that the brakes have to work much harder to stop, might also explain partially the burning out of the belt. i loved the execution of this test though
@garage54 You have the propeller turning the wrong way! Notice in neutral it wants to spin counter clockwise, but when you had it in gear you’re spinning it clockwise. You were actually blowing air into the car not away from the car.
You also need to check the pitch of that prop there are many different prop designs for different airplanes some are power props to carry weight Summer speed props to go fast a three-bladed prop would have gave you more propulsion but also use more energy might be a trade-off
@garage54 put the gearbox in reverse or mount the propeller the other way ...meaning its mounted backwards ....the higher gear (4th gear) is only creating higher reverse thrust with increased rpm .....you can see the thrust isnt pushing the smoke at the back of the car away
You should try that again but add a second lada engine that will power only the propeller then run them together and see what changes But I suggest you add a way to disconnect the propeller when you hit the brakes so your not fighting thrust As far as you making the rear suspension rigid, why? Why can't you add a spring tensioner for the belts so when it gets loose the spring will suck up the difference and keep the belts tight Love you guys experiments!
Adding the prop to the car's drive line is introducing drag, thus slowing the car as a whole down as it's having to work on not only the wheels, but the prop too which is having to act against the resistance of the air, so it's causing the car to slow down as there's not enough power for both wheels and propeller, you need to have a separate engine to run the prop... :)
If you're interested in this design, consider the "Aerowagon" or even the "Schienenzeppelin". The first one was able to hit 140 kilometres per hour (87 miles per hour) and was built in 1917!
I think the trouble with stopping with the propeller in 4th gear is not so much air thrust per se--but more the flywheel effect of the prop's moving mass. In other words, the propeller acts like a traction motor commonly used in push toys.
It is harder to stop because the propeller has a lot of inertia, not so much because of the thrust. You can put a clutch for a propeller and before braking, you disengage the clutch and see the difference :)
Glad they weren't actually expecting this to work ... I was worried. You really need more power than you can put to the ground before you can start tapping the engine for other propulsive methods.
You must factor in that a propeller driven aircraft has the propeller already spinning at several thousand RPM before it's even moving, held in place by the brakes. Sounds like to get this experiment working properly you need to think Hi Stall convertor or clutch type assembly to get the prop rotating at high revs before the car even starts moving and you can fade in the RPM's of the propeller with the RMP of the engine.
I love you man, just subscribed, idk why I hadn't before now. Seen quite a few of your videos, love the experimentation and the expertise you put into these videos, wish our (or perhaps just mine?) governments weren't so fucked, wish they represented us, keep doing you brother! Watching from nc usa, much love
you gotta bring like 5 videos togeather now.... Weld the diff, Fit a 3rd compression ring, add a diesal fuel injection pump.... ect all in the same video lol lets see what crazy shit can be had :P
The pulleys should be mounted to the the car trans output shaft BEFORE the front u-joint and the trans for the prop mounted ridgid directly above with a ridgid shaft to the prop . That way the rear suspension can work normally . 👍
the transmission is hooked up backwards. the output of the transmission needs to be the input. transmission is a speed reduction device like 1st gear 5 to 1. hook it up backwards and make it increase speed. then 1st will be 1 to 5.
Instead of placing the gearbox as you would do normally try rotating it so shifter comes inside car. At that point reverse gear should work as a 1st gear and 1-4 gears will work in direction of reverse gear.
Need to use aluminium or fibreglass propeller, adjust the angle and make it smaller to avoid too much drag... Using chains instead of belts might also help, but you need better tensioners, or it will slip too much. Using electric motor to drive the propeller will help with overloading the clutch.
It's because of the propeller producing reverse trust due to the blade angle...... U may get the required forward trust by changing the blade rotation to the opposite by using the reverse gear on the gearbox which is connecting to the propeller
Do you have the propeller mounted correctly? If it is mounted wrong, it will produce drag instead of thrust. On a plane, that propeller would be pulling, not pushing. It may not work as a pusher.
It's because of two forces working against each other, like pulling a trailer. Even though the propeller is creating forward movement, the car is creating its own forward momentum and they aren't matching in power
The propeller was creating drag on the driveshaft making stopping difficult, you should have tried the prop as a pusher from behind instead of a puller. Try a clutch on the pulley you are using so it can freespin
Propellers are less efficient than wheels for drive. Ducted propellers can make a prop more efficient if you get the clearance really tight. However we are talking about 0.1mm.
![ILLSLICK - THE KING'S LANDING [Freestyle]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/feIJJnNkTfk/mqdefault.jpg)
If they use the same engine to power both the wheels and the propeller, it's obvious that the engine's energy will be split between the wheels and the propeller. The propeller is always less efficient for propulsion than the wheels. Therefore, part of the engine's energy will be transferred from a more efficient mode of propulsion to a less efficient one. This video would be more interesting if they used a second engine.
This
Or if it's a car with a lot of power but limited grip (fwd or on snow/ice)...
I don’t think that’s true because airplanes have wheels and propellers and they go so fast they are able to achieve enough speed to go airborne and fly.
On second thought your theory could be tested by installing the propeller in a reverse direction. In testing if the car goes forward, your theory is correct however if the car travels backwards. You will be proven incorrect.
they should strap some powerfulll drone motors , they are small so you can have a lot there, also the motor and the battery is much smaller than any combustion engine
You need a pusher style propeller if you want to rear mount it or you are adding a huge air brake.
Yes. Swamp boat or air boat fan. Would love to see it.
Stay gold.
@@dnlmachine4287 They do make aircraft propellers for pushing.
They actually mounted the propellor to 'push' instead of 'pull'. They mounted it in such a way that the part that would be 'leading' into the air was actually 'trailing'.
@@Boodieman72Yes, there have been many. The biggest was Howard Hughes H-4 Spruce Goose with 10 engines. A notable USAF one was the B-36 with six pusher engines and four jet engines. Google for more.
Depends on how you mount it and the direction of the gearbox.
You need a second engine for the prop. Maybe a self built inline seven...
In-line seven? I WANT ONE!!
High revving motorbike engine would be better. Less weight too. Hayabusa...
@@thebolsta yes, but they must build an Inline seven. There IS Not one eixsting and i wanna know how it Sounds. If not for this Project, then for another one as a Main engine.
@@totalrecone Yes, there IS Not one in the Internet. It simply doesn't exist. The Guys have ti build one. I wanna hear the Sound.
@@dorthesanchezz4227 Engine simulator?
15:43 “Even though we don’t FEEL the air, it creates a Lada resistance.”
#seemslegit 👍🏼
#LadaResistance #ResistLada #VivaLaLadaResistance ✊🏼
😂😂😂
It isn't the propeller's thrust that's making it hard to stop. It's the momentum of the propeller, which turns the pulley, which moves the belt, that keeps the drive shaft spinning. There's a lot of mass moving very fast in a circle, and it's not easy to stop that quickly.
I just commented the same thing basically. They should do it again with a large diameter flywheel in place of the propeller.
If he uses the clutch to disengage the engine from the drive shaft just before braking, then the spinning driveshaft won't affect the engine rpms.
@@dannydaw59 it's not engine RPM that's the issue. That prop has a huge amount of inertia that's coupled to the driveline. All of that is working against the brakes. With the clutch engaged, he will be getting a small amount of compression braking but nowhere near enough to compete with that giant meat grinder spinning around!
@@regan44017 He can use it to make giant kebabs or Cevapi
You should try to make a Lada into a boat. Like use the entire car as the hull and such
not bad idea just strap a boat floor to it and add some wholes for the wheels
It's been done before, but using a Zaporozhets, back in maybe 2017.
That was my suggestion too.
They already done it!😂👍
just like cubans have done to reach miami 😂
The propeller is basically a huge flywheel as well.
Exactly, it needs power to get up to speed to provide thrust, then the inertia of the propeller makes stopping more difficult.
@@abpsd73 the propeller isn’t in clean air either so that might be an issue. It’s fighting against a low pressure zone behind the car.
Because it is flywheel normal wheels got less traction.
It would have been attached to the actual flywheel. That would have been cool. Have a big a$$ windmill sticking up out of your hood.
I really don't think it would have any impact on your output torque like you're thinking it would. Your engines flywheel only makes a difference in two scenarios: Your not moving so you have no forward momentum, or if the clutch is engaged. Otherwise the entire weight of your car and it's wheels are acting as a giant flywheel with your cars forward momentum.
Propeller is mounted in the wrong direction, the forward surface is pointing backwards. The thrust goes in the correct direction, but with low efficiency.
Negative. See the metal strip? That is the leading edge, and this is a reverse rotation propellor.
That is EXACTLY 💯 what I just noticed !!! They've actually had it the wrong way, and it's actually slowing down the car... The aerodynamic bite into the wind seems wrong, irregardless of metal strip location.
@@rod3134 Nonsense. It is not spinning the wrong way. It is spinning the correct way, but it is a reverse rotation propellor because that is what you want with the standard driveshaft rotation that is in effect even in the third world nation known as Russia. What is happening here is that now the engine is turning a second transmission [Why....?] and powering the flex of a pair of belts, and the resulting drag on the engine is WAY more than the additional thrust.
A typical 72 inch general aviation propellor does not spin more than 2700 rpm for reasons of strength, but more than anything so that the propellor tips do not exceed the speed of sound. When that happens, drag and NOISE increases suddenly, and you actually lose thrust. I'm not sure what a driveshaft turns at, but it seems to me to be much simpler to put a properly sized pulley on the driveshaft and prop so that the prop turns around 2700 RPM at redline in first gear, which is what they were doing with the car's transmission. That's why they never went over 60 km/h (36 mph...) in this video.
@@Flies2FLL When he stops the car at 12:00, the propeller rotates clockwise (from behind), metal strip suggest counter clockwise rotation, so at least the propeller rotates in the wrong direction.
@@Flies2FLL Esta bien lo que decis del borde de ataque, pero la hélice tiene un lado cóncavo y otro convexo, si el cóncavo queda hacia el lado del empuje esta pierde eficiencia, es lo mismo con los barcos, fijate que el lado convexo queda hacia el empuje, o popa, y máxima eficacia, y el convexo queda hacia la proa del barco para que este se traslade hacia atras con poca eficacia, ya que no necesita tanto!!
Thanks for trying it in reverse that is what I was hoping for. You guys do a lot of work to entertain us and educate at the same time!
0:19 What, no "Hey there, fellas!"?? lolol
also, 2:51, lovin the Product Placement shot...i remember back when Rolf was merely the 'son of a shepherd' who lived down the street, and now he's built an entire Company...Nana would be proud!
The scariest part isn't that Garage 54 vehicle ,but seeing SWIFT containers in the yard ,back in the states swift truck drivers are more risky than anything 54 puts on the road
this is one of the funnest channels on youtube,,keep it up
It wouldn't stop as fast because at the 12 minute mark only one brake light was coming on. Replace the one on the right to see if that helps.
Yeah I think I saw the right one was leaking brake light fluid.
Yes the extra electricity that's goes to the one side affects the brakes negatively.
I have just found this channel. This is one of the best channels on TH-cam...Excellent and funny.
I am gen X and something struck me as funny... Garage 54 seems to be the manifestation of me when I would say to myself, "That's too crazy to even consider."
That's Russia for you, not just G54... :)
Try again with 2 engines. One for the car and one for the propeller 💯
I'm surprised that so many people suggest this, after all, if you add a second engine, it's a pile of mass that will be working on a much less efficient drive, the results will be even worse, people, where were you instead of physics lessons at school?
@@Arthurroo00 The prop engine can be electric and run off the battery. So almost like a hybrid system. The commenter in question didn't specifically suggest that the second engine should be gasoline, so hold your assumptions.
@@TimSlee1 Did you seriously write this? I don't believe it, is this the level of knowledge in society? Batteries have an even worse level of transferring energy into motion than a combustion engine, which means that the entire system would have to be even heavier. Get this into your head: that a propeller transfers energy into motion much worse than wheels, there is no way it can work because propeller needs more energy to generate the same thrust, and until it achieves this it acts as an aerodynamic brake. Seriously, you didn't learn anything from this video?
@@Arthurroo00 "Did you seriously write this? I don't believe it, is this the level of knowledge in society?" 🤓
We can start talking when you stop having an attitude problem.
@@TimSlee1 You don't understand the basic laws of physics, BASIC, a child of 10 years old should understand it already, but it's my "attitude" that's a problem for you haha. Let's talk about life priorities xD
Same as asking if converting 2WD to AWD makes it faster. You lose power, but you increase the amount of power that can be used.
It's the opposite, though. Taking power from the rear wheels and diverting it to a propeller *removes* power than can be used for acceleration and directs it into a propeller that is providing either zero or negative acceleration due to its own inertia and air resistance. Not only that, but the propeller and dedicated drivetrain adds weight to the vehicle, slowing it further. This is an interesting project, but it has no chance whatsoever of accelerating the car faster ;).
@@antibrevity I think I worded that poorly. If you have a high enough power to weight ratio, a propeller can exert force without using up friction with the road, which there is a limited amount of. So you can use more power, albeit not as efficiently as just driving the wheels. Assuming you can spin the propeller fast enough to actually generate thrust.
But the mighty Lada, sadly, has nowhere near that much power. So the power losses just make it monumentally slower.
11:37 I think the rotation of the propeller is reversed, creating a thrust that is opposite to the direction of the car motion
It seems like it, but at 5:50 (1st gear) it does rotate in the correct direction. Maybe in 4th gear it spins so fast that it does more than 1 rotation between 2 video frames.
that's it LOL
It spins in the correct direction, watch it when it's moving slowly. The problem is that it takes a significant amount of power to spin that propeller up, especially in it's higher gears. Any power being used to accelerate the propeller is being taken away from the drive wheels, plus there's extra parasitic drag due to the belt and extra transmission
The stuff you guys come up with is so damn entertaining!
So many comments on random specifics and no one has wondered if “ducting” would work..but I do! 😂 great videos guys, fun stuff 👌🏾👍🏾🤘🏾
I know lots of others have said this, but it needs a second engine with a good power/weight ratio in order to help. Any time its under hard acceleration, its wasting power on spinning up the propeller, especially when the prop transmission is in higher gears. Not to mention that propellers need to be already spinning at a fast & constant rpm, so it's always operating inefficiently during hard acceleration. What you need is to hold the brakes and get the second engine spinning the prop about as fast as it can, then launch the car
The propeller is acting like a flywheel, that is why it is hard to stop. You don't want additional rotating mass on the transmission, making the engine work harder to accelerate it with every gear change. You want the flywheel (propeller) to be driven by the engine directly so the inertia fights to keep the rpms up, instead of dragging them down. Additionally you can get your thrust up front before sending any power to the wheels. I still think you will ultimately be slower because ground driven is more efficient than propeller driven
Congratulations! I'm sure sales of your new rotating parachute will be off the charts!
Πολυ ομορφη η ιστορια, σε ευχαριστουμε Γιαννη, ημουν και εγω καποτε με μια ορεα γυναικα εξωτερικα και εσωτερικα αλλα δυστηχως την παρατησα και πηδουσα μια αλλι, τελικα η αλλη εβαλε κιλα και εγινε σαν ελεφαντας και μου εβαζε καθε μερα τις φωνες, εχασα τη καλη ευκαιρια και πηδηξα μιαν χοντρη και τωρα το μετανοιωσα πικρα.
The propeller definitely needs its own engine. You got the best acceleration when this engine had only one job, which was spin the wheels. This engine had a limited amount of power. When you gave this engine multiple jobs the energy was split in different directions and less energy was pushing the car forward. One of the directions the energy went was into rotational energy of the propeller. Thus, the propeller was acting like a big flywheel, taking energy from the engine just to spin up. When you were trying to slow down, that same energy went back through the transmission and into the drive shaft and kept the car moving forward, making it harder to brake. Finally, the car was blocking a lot of airflow to the propeller so that only the top half of the propeller would be effective. It would also be an improvement to move the propeller's transmission and driveshaft to the roof.
that prop is turning clockwise while driving farward but it should be turning counter clockwise from the way its set up
I love this channel been following it now years, and never disappoints me well done to you all my friends
“Props” for testing this! But of course when you think about why it’s slower it makes sense… since it’s the same power plant it will only succumb to more losses.
13:40 Actually, this just means it has a lot of inertia. it's like strapping a heavy flywheel to your wheels, needs more power to spin up and slow down plus the friction loss from the bearings, pullys, belt/chain or whatever and the gearbox itself.
“The tensioner broke off…
…. Let’s floor it to reach maxinum top speed”
I love garage54❤
Regarding braking: It is not a case of the propeller's thrust having a negative effect on the braking, but rather the flywheel effect. At speed, the prop has a lot of kinetic energy stored up and with no way of freewheeling, it will try to continue to drive the car forward via the belts and into the differential. I'd bet that a lot of the belt smoke is actually from your attempts to stop at the end of the run.
That is a FANTASTIC trytoexplainwhy-example for a physics/engineering masterclass.
A DEATH MACHINE!!🤣😂 YOU GUYS ROCK
That is a reverse rotation propellor, so it can work off the driveshaft.
The only thing that this would seem to do is to negate aerodynamic drag that exists behind a moving object. I don't think it is moving fast enough to really add much thrust, but there is extra drag placed on the driveline that the engine has to overcome.
Around the time bicycles were still being experimented-with seriously, there were multiple prototypes which directed crank power ONLY to a rear-end propeller. The claims were from identical top speed to increased.
I saw a test here on youtube just 1 year ago of a guy re-creating one of these bicycles and the top speed actually became slightly HIGHER! The reason for this is even though the efficiency should be & is worse than from tyre contact, if you have any back-blowing wind, even if it's mostly side-ways, you essentially run into an effect akin to cycling on a running treadmill. But likewise forward-facing wind works much against you compared to wheel drive.
However the biggest issue (except the danger..) is the acceleration which is always inferior to tyre drive. But, where both drives are used it's simply beneficial and when you have more power than grip it is certainly superior to not having a prop. Still when you run power levels so much that you can't get enough grip even in 4wd. the prop's nature causes too many issues for it to really be viable, biggest issue is these ridiculous levels of power on a prop so close to the ground & surroundings is simply too dangerous, at least as far as liability goes so past 1930s I don't think any official body would even allow this to be used in any kind of racing.
were you spinning the prop backwards?
No, it was freewheeling from the forward direction of the car when it wasn't being powered. He did mount the propellor from the backside so it would be developing 'push' instead of 'pull', or if you want to say it a different way, it was mounted so it was propelling the car forward from the rear. It was rurning the same diredtion to make thrust as if it had been mounted on the front of the car. Retired USAF Master Aircraft Technician here. Hope this helps.
@@Colorado_NativeLook at the angle of the blades at 2:29. The propeller is spinning clockwise from the rear when the car is running, just like a fan with blades in that direction, it is going to blow air forwards toward the front of the car, cause the thrust to be going the wrong way. If the propeller was spinning anti clockwise, or the blade was flipped, then it would work like this, but it isn’t like that.
@@HelloFellowDinosaurs Go to 5:34 and look at the propellor. You can see the leading edge, the one that is curved and looks like it might have the metal strip embedded. Now go look at about 6 minute mark when the car is slowing. You can see the prop is spinning in a counter-clockwise direction, when viewed from behind, with the leading edge clearly visible. The prop is clearly turning in the correct direction given its location and orientation on the car. At certain places in the video it looks like it is spinning the wrong way, this is due to its rotation speed and the 'shutter speed' of the camera(s). If you watch TV programs with cars, sometimes it looks like the wheels are rotating in the opposite way the car is traveling.
@@Colorado_Native yeah.
Would be interesting to see what would happen with just the prop. Take the gears out of the diff so just the prop is propelling the car.
Overcoming propeller inertia is the problem. You'll need another clutch mechanism so you can bring up the propeller RPM independent of the back wheels. Same for slowing down. Disengage the propeller system so it's angular momentum isn't contributing like a gyroscope to driving the rear wheels. I think that if you can spin up the propeller BEFORE you take off for your 0-60 kmh run, you will get a faster time.
Very interesting and entertaining setup. Perfect for TH-cam.
Very interesting concept 😀 Okay, why it won't make an effect: (1) You need a proper aviation engine (e.g. Lyocoming O-360). (2) Driving this propeller through the shaft will only have as a result less power on the wheels and insufficient power on the propeller, making the overall setup way more inefficient. The reason, you need longer braking distance, is because the rotating propeller has still momentum and will keep delivering thrust even if you disengage the clutch. The proper way to test or compare is to completely disconnect the wheels and drive only the propeller via a shaft and not belts; but here, you need 150-200HP to have decent results and an acceleration 0-60MPH below 10s. It takes about ~250m roll for a Cesna 152 to reach 50KNOTS (~90km/h) in about 9 - 11 seconds depending on terrain conditions.
prop needs to be mounted backwards and trans in reverse you are making an "air brake" with it backwards
Totally predictable result, wasting power driving the propeller, an inefficient form of propulsion, sapping that available for the wheels a which are a far more efficient form of propulsion.
Plus the propeller is back to front.!
This would only help if your tires don't make enough grip. try it in the wet grass or snow?
You just got to love Siberian ingenuity, that is something that never even crossed my mind and yet it was so interesting to watch. I thought that maybe the prop was on in reverse so creating drag and not thrust but putting the gearbox into reverse disproved that theory.
It's possible that it could be taking longer to accelerate with each gear because of there being so much thrust and said thrust causing the car's backside to buck so much that it's causing drag
Extra drag from the second gearbox just leached power from the road wheels
Prop needs to be decoupled from the drive wheels
That reaction at 2:49 was the best. "Whoh!"
I think as some of other watchers pointed below. Propeller acts as flywheel and being so, it it gets harder to accellerate and decelerate. Hence longer times. If he was breaking without being in a gear, he would have stopped earlier.
So the idea is good… but the problem is that you have the propeller rpm locked to the rear tires. Unless the car is traction limited, no matter how hard the propeller spins, it can’t overpower the wheels on the ground. You can see the energy is making a ton of thrust from the exhaust smoke getting blasted… The driveline RPM and the propeller RPM should be disconnected somehow. Doing that on the same engine may be difficult. The easiest way of course is a second engine… even if it’s just a lawnmower engine it would help. The only other way I could think of would be rather then a manual transmission to the prop, you use a CVT or maybe even an automatic, so that the props RPM can very itself with load. The pest way would also be to somehow take the power for this second transmission directly off the crank, but again that would be quite difficult… unless you put the prop on the front of the car and took the power off the front of the engine… that might do the trick.
i think at least part of the reason its so much harder to stop is because at that speed and weight the propellor is basically a flywheel storing energy that the brakes have to work much harder to stop, might also explain partially the burning out of the belt. i loved the execution of this test though
@garage54 You have the propeller turning the wrong way! Notice in neutral it wants to spin counter clockwise, but when you had it in gear you’re spinning it clockwise. You were actually blowing air into the car not away from the car.
You also need to check the pitch of that prop there are many different prop designs for different airplanes some are power props to carry weight Summer speed props to go fast a three-bladed prop would have gave you more propulsion but also use more energy might be a trade-off
Excellent work lads but the results are exactly as expected.
You guys are having great jobs😀
@garage54 put the gearbox in reverse or mount the propeller the other way ...meaning its mounted backwards ....the higher gear (4th gear) is only creating higher reverse thrust with increased rpm .....you can see the thrust isnt pushing the smoke at the back of the car away
I'm a big fan of this idea ! 👍
Nothing makes sense on this channel, That’s why I like it.
You should try that again but add a second lada engine that will power only the propeller then run them together and see what changes
But I suggest you add a way to disconnect the propeller when you hit the brakes so your not fighting thrust
As far as you making the rear suspension rigid, why? Why can't you add a spring tensioner for the belts so when it gets loose the spring will suck up the difference and keep the belts tight
Love you guys experiments!
The limiting factor will be the engine power not the slipping on the tyres. Also the prop system has momentum, it's like having a huge flywheel.
Looks like fun. What if you experiment with pulley sizes like on a riding mower and add a spring loaded belt tensioner to keep the belt tight
Keep up the great work !
These guys are amazing.
Adding the prop to the car's drive line is introducing drag, thus slowing the car as a whole down as it's having to work on not only the wheels, but the prop too which is having to act against the resistance of the air, so it's causing the car to slow down as there's not enough power for both wheels and propeller, you need to have a separate engine to run the prop... :)
If you're interested in this design, consider the "Aerowagon" or even the "Schienenzeppelin". The first one was able to hit 140 kilometres per hour (87 miles per hour) and was built in 1917!
I think the trouble with stopping with the propeller in 4th gear is not so much air thrust per se--but more the flywheel effect of the prop's moving mass. In other words, the propeller acts like a traction motor commonly used in push toys.
the propeller is on the backwards way he intended. the logo is facing rear, which would be on the front of an airplane.
There are boats that use propellors too.
@@jordan-mn6yy how's that useful? I'll propeller forward or rearward in your butt. Which direction is it?
@@jordan-mn6yy Yup. and it also must be facing the correct way and spun a certain way.
i don't know about supplementary acceleration but its fantastic content! 😃😃😃
Just gained a subscriber, greetings from the UK!
Το πιο τρελό συνεργείο χαχαχα συνεχίστε την άψογη δουλειά!
It is harder to stop because the propeller has a lot of inertia, not so much because of the thrust. You can put a clutch for a propeller and before braking, you disengage the clutch and see the difference :)
Glad they weren't actually expecting this to work ... I was worried. You really need more power than you can put to the ground before you can start tapping the engine for other propulsive methods.
Right? I was kind of interested in this thumbnail thinking that they had an alternative way of powering it.
"Pedestrian chopper 5,000"
You must factor in that a propeller driven aircraft has the propeller already spinning at several thousand RPM before it's even moving, held in place by the brakes. Sounds like to get this experiment working properly you need to think Hi Stall convertor or clutch type assembly to get the prop rotating at high revs before the car even starts moving and you can fade in the RPM's of the propeller with the RMP of the engine.
Perhaps the fan is mounted backwards. Try inverting it. Oh then try moving the fan to the front of the car, just like airplanes
I’d like a video showing us how does it look like when we try to change gears without using the clutch, like actually visualizing the gears!!
Try mounting an engine in the trunk just for the propeller, that would be some mad max stuff!
I love you man, just subscribed, idk why I hadn't before now. Seen quite a few of your videos, love the experimentation and the expertise you put into these videos, wish our (or perhaps just mine?) governments weren't so fucked, wish they represented us, keep doing you brother! Watching from nc usa, much love
You should mount the propeller on top to see if making the car lighter makes it faster.
As long as traction is not a problem, using tires is more efficient way to put energy into motion. This would only steal energy from the engine.
you gotta bring like 5 videos togeather now.... Weld the diff, Fit a 3rd compression ring, add a diesal fuel injection pump.... ect all in the same video lol lets see what crazy shit can be had :P
Rotate the trans. Use it like an overdrive. Hook the tail to the belts and the propeller to the input
The pulleys should be mounted to the the car trans output shaft BEFORE the front u-joint and the trans for the prop mounted ridgid directly above with a ridgid shaft to the prop . That way the rear suspension can work normally . 👍
trying to break thermodynamics with this experiment.
it could be that the propeller is spinning in a direction where its producing reverse thrust, slowing the car down, or get a pusher style propeller.
Blade number of the propeller is a factor too. Also the belt is slipping so max thrust isn’t being produced
the transmission is hooked up backwards. the output of the transmission needs to be the input. transmission is a speed reduction device like 1st gear 5 to 1. hook it up backwards and make it increase speed. then 1st will be 1 to 5.
😂 wicked. You've should come up with a fast acting belt tensioner, testing with springloads on it. So you can drive with suspension on wheels
Instead of placing the gearbox as you would do normally try rotating it so shifter comes inside car. At that point reverse gear should work as a 1st gear and 1-4 gears will work in direction of reverse gear.
I feel a Lada based "micro light" is on the horizon! I'd like to see a Lada fly!
Need to use aluminium or fibreglass propeller, adjust the angle and make it smaller to avoid too much drag... Using chains instead of belts might also help, but you need better tensioners, or it will slip too much. Using electric motor to drive the propeller will help with overloading the clutch.
I don't think it's difficult to brake because of thrust, but because of the inertia of the prop
I would like to see you guys try this again but with a separate engine pushing the propeller.
It's because of the propeller producing reverse trust due to the blade angle...... U may get the required forward trust by changing the blade rotation to the opposite by using the reverse gear on the gearbox which is connecting to the propeller
Do you have the propeller mounted correctly? If it is mounted wrong, it will produce drag instead of thrust. On a plane, that propeller would be pulling, not pushing. It may not work as a pusher.
It's because of two forces working against each other, like pulling a trailer. Even though the propeller is creating forward movement, the car is creating its own forward momentum and they aren't matching in power
The propeller was creating drag on the driveshaft making stopping difficult, you should have tried the prop as a pusher from behind instead of a puller. Try a clutch on the pulley you are using so it can freespin
Looks like you need to be able to take it on longer runs, and engage the propeller via clutch at top speed .. :) .. too fun!
Propellers are less efficient than wheels for drive. Ducted propellers can make a prop more efficient if you get the clearance really tight. However we are talking about 0.1mm.
Should add a second engine, one for the wheels and the other for the propeller