01-05-2008, 08:09 PM
|
#1
|
|
Track rat
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Southern ID
Posts: 3,701
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by blue2000s
Topless, it's true that a turbine engine, such as a jet on an airplane can also make more power under cooler air conditions, but power isn't the reason for the longer runway needed for take-off. That's due to the differences in ar density providing differences in lift. Hotter air, being less dense, provides less lift so the plane needs to be going faster before the lift force is sufficient to raise the plane.
|
Yeah I know... which is exactly what I said.
__________________
2009 Cayman 2.9L PDK (with a few tweaks)
PCA-GPX Chief Driving Instructor-Ret.
|
|
|
01-05-2008, 09:08 PM
|
#2
|
|
There Is No Substitute.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West Coast
Posts: 3,253
|
I never actually thought about it, but now that you mention it. I have been feeling more power since it has gotten colder. Thanks for pointing that out.
It would be interesting to see a dyno test at 70° and at 35° to see if there is a significant power difference.
__________________
1999 Ocean Blue Metallic Boxster - blueboxster.com
|
|
|
01-05-2008, 09:34 PM
|
#3
|
|
Porscheectomy
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Seattle Area
Posts: 3,011
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Topless
Yeah I know... which is exactly what I said. 
|
The way I read it, it sounded like you were referring to variations in engine power having something to do with the length needed for take off.
|
|
|
01-06-2008, 03:16 AM
|
#4
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: MA
Posts: 58
|
|
|
|
01-07-2008, 07:04 AM
|
#5
|
|
Porscheectomy
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Seattle Area
Posts: 3,011
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ichiro75
Here's the verdict. 1% increase in Horsepower every 10 degree colder. :dance:
|
It's not quite that much, but it's a decent rule of thumb.
|
|
|
01-07-2008, 10:24 AM
|
#6
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Clemente, CA, USA
Posts: 55
|
Assuming you are talking about Fahrenheit degrees, and only density effects, it's actually bigger than 1%/10F. The math is quite trivial, just turn your temperatures into absolute (Rankine scale) and divide them (the ideal gas law, more specifically Guy-Lussac's law, only have linear terms making things easy).
E.g.,
t0 = 70F = 529R
t1 = 60F = 519R
density change = t0/t1 = 529/519 = 1.019
In other words, 1.9% increase in density.
(Hey, admins, fix the [ code ] block in your php...)
|
|
|
01-07-2008, 01:35 PM
|
#7
|
|
Porscheectomy
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Seattle Area
Posts: 3,011
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by efahl
Assuming you are talking about Fahrenheit degrees, and only density effects, it's actually bigger than 1%/10F. The math is quite trivial, just turn your temperatures into absolute (Rankine scale) and divide them (the ideal gas law, more specifically Guy-Lussac's law, only have linear terms making things easy).
E.g.,
t0 = 70F = 529R
t1 = 60F = 519R
density change = t0/t1 = 529/519 = 1.019
In other words, 1.9% increase in density.
(Hey, admins, fix the [ code ] block in your php...)
|
The % will be different depending on the actual temperature (40 vs 50 vs 60 ect) but that's just density, not power.
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:55 PM.
| |