The Turbine Whine
Moderators: neps, Matthew, Michael Pajaro
-
KARR_RULES
- Volunteer
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 2:35 pm
- What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
- Contact:
The Turbine Whine
Does anyone know if that cool sounding whine both kitt and karr have, was added in post production or if someone modified the engine to do it, and if so how?
Space..... the final Frontier and all that other good stuff 
-
TurbomanKnight
- FLAG Operative
- Posts: 1297
- Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 11:09 pm
- What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
- Location: Brooklyn, NY 11208
- Contact:
It was a sample from a F-16 or some similar military fighter jet. It was then dubbed into the video.
Anti-Ford. 'Nuff Said.
1988 Camaro IROC-Z28
5.7 Tuned Port Injection .040 over
700R4
2.77 posi
3" Exhaust with Headers
1988 Camaro IROC-Z28
5.7 Tuned Port Injection .040 over
700R4
2.77 posi
3" Exhaust with Headers
-
FuzzieDice
- KRO Podcaster (retired)
- Posts: 3333
- Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 5:55 pm
Now days, there are things you can put on the tailpipe of a car to make it whine. Not quite the same or maybe not even similar but there are ways to change your car's sound.
I remember my dad had a car that the radio speakers would softly whine higher pitch when accellerating and lower pitch when decelerating. Interference from the engine or something. Knight Rider wasn't even on TV back then. By the time it was, he had cars that were more updated and didn't do that.
I remember my dad had a car that the radio speakers would softly whine higher pitch when accellerating and lower pitch when decelerating. Interference from the engine or something. Knight Rider wasn't even on TV back then. By the time it was, he had cars that were more updated and didn't do that.
-
marctronixx
- Recruit
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2003 7:13 pm
- What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
- Location: ATL
- Contact:
Maybe there's an idea for someone who want's to replicate that sound -
ReddawgKnight
- FLAG Assistant
- Posts: 514
- Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2004 12:23 am
- What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
- Location: Chicago, IL
- Contact:
-
Lost Knight
- FLAG Special Ops
- Posts: 2719
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 7:45 pm
- What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
- Location: Long Island, NY
-
Lost Knight
- FLAG Special Ops
- Posts: 2719
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 7:45 pm
- What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
- Location: Long Island, NY
-
msKEN
- FLAG Assistant
- Posts: 781
- Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2002 1:01 am
- What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
- Location: Cincinnati, OH
- Contact:
RedDawg, check out this thread over at the Knight Foundation, they have a pretty good turbine sound effect that has background noise cleaned up out of it. http://www.knightfoundation.net/forum/v ... php?t=3128
-
FuzzieDice
- KRO Podcaster (retired)
- Posts: 3333
- Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 5:55 pm
-
ReddawgKnight
- FLAG Assistant
- Posts: 514
- Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2004 12:23 am
- What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
- Location: Chicago, IL
- Contact:
-
Akaihiryuu
- Operative
- Posts: 125
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 12:29 pm
- What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
- Contact:
KITT is supposed to have a turbojet engine, but the car itself that they used for filming just had a regular V8. You can easily see when the hood is opened. I guess they just couldn't afford the special effects necessary to make it look like the car actually had a turbine in it, so they dubbed a jet sound effect into the audio. It would be physically possible to put that kind of engine into a car IRL, turbojet engines are FAR FAR FAR more powerful for their size than piston engines are, but the problem is, they are only efficient at certain speeds. Turbine engines have actually been put in cars before, but if you have to constantly start and stop, changing the speed of the engine, they become VERY inefficient, like gallons to the mile. They really only achieve efficiency in something like a jet where they can be taken up to their optimal RPM/speed. Also, turbojet engines take a fair bit of time to start. The turbine/compressor has to be spun up to a certain speed (usually by an external electric motor) before there is enough pressure/airflow in the engine for it to even burn fuel. If you've ever taken a plane flight, look at how long it takes to get the engines running. Those are the exact same type of engine that KITT was supposed to have (only his was smaller, on an aircraft the engine itself is larger than a car). Neat idea, but there's no way a turbojet in a car could achieve the 200mpg KITT supposedly got. Here's a wikipedia article on turbojets: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbojet
In an aircraft, the thrust is what's primarily used from the engine. However in a car, the engine would probably be run at a lower speed and had most of the thrust directed into the turbine, which would be connected to the car's drive train. It would need a highly specialized transmission design, but it is possible to do...it's been done before, but it's so inefficient that it's not really worth it. You wouldn't want to have a whole lot of thrust coming out the back of the car (though there would be some). A 747 with its engines at even half thrust produces enough airflow to actually lift a car up and send it flying, if the car were to drive into the jet exhaust. It would be pretty dramatic if KITT were to send cars behind him flying, but in reality the engine would probably be a modified design that didn't put out as much thrust. But even that would require compromises, as one of the main advantages of a turbojet engine (and why it's so efficient in an aircraft compared to a piston engine) is the thrust it puts out. I could probably ramble on for hours about how it would be possible, but very impractical, to put a jet engine in a car.
In an aircraft, the thrust is what's primarily used from the engine. However in a car, the engine would probably be run at a lower speed and had most of the thrust directed into the turbine, which would be connected to the car's drive train. It would need a highly specialized transmission design, but it is possible to do...it's been done before, but it's so inefficient that it's not really worth it. You wouldn't want to have a whole lot of thrust coming out the back of the car (though there would be some). A 747 with its engines at even half thrust produces enough airflow to actually lift a car up and send it flying, if the car were to drive into the jet exhaust. It would be pretty dramatic if KITT were to send cars behind him flying, but in reality the engine would probably be a modified design that didn't put out as much thrust. But even that would require compromises, as one of the main advantages of a turbojet engine (and why it's so efficient in an aircraft compared to a piston engine) is the thrust it puts out. I could probably ramble on for hours about how it would be possible, but very impractical, to put a jet engine in a car.
-
FuzzieDice
- KRO Podcaster (retired)
- Posts: 3333
- Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 5:55 pm
And I would be very interested in your rambling on for hours about this. This is some fascinating stuff! I vaguely recall that Chrysler had experimented with a turbine powered car at one time and gave up on it (probably for the reasons you stated).
I'm hearing that these new Hybrid engines are sounding promising.
This is some fascinating stuff! I vaguely recall that Chrysler had experimented with a turbine powered car at one time and gave up on it (probably for the reasons you stated).I'm hearing that these new Hybrid engines are sounding promising.
-
Akaihiryuu
- Operative
- Posts: 125
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 12:29 pm
- What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
- Contact:
Hybrids are quite nifty...I have one, a Prius. http://www.toyota.com/prius
The way it's designed, you could really substitute any type of engine for the internal combustion engine that's currently in there...biodiesel, hydrogen, or even something else entirely like a turbine. I was thinking...turbines are actually fairly efficient at generating electricity, and in a case where you're using a turbine the way my car uses its gas engine (it generally keeps the engine at a constant speed, whatever is most efficient for what it's doing), it might actually be able to work. Turbine engines are a lot simpler and have a lot fewer moving parts than a piston engine, and thus have far fewer components to break. It probably wouldn't get good enough gas mileage though. AFAIK, the only times turbines have successfully been used in cars are in those experimental things that are used to break the land speed records out on the salt flats (and some of those look like planes that just don't take off, heh). As much as I like KITT though, a turbojet just wouldn't be capable of what was shown in the series, unless they wanted to state that KITT's gas mileage was about 10 gallons to the mile.
The way it's designed, you could really substitute any type of engine for the internal combustion engine that's currently in there...biodiesel, hydrogen, or even something else entirely like a turbine. I was thinking...turbines are actually fairly efficient at generating electricity, and in a case where you're using a turbine the way my car uses its gas engine (it generally keeps the engine at a constant speed, whatever is most efficient for what it's doing), it might actually be able to work. Turbine engines are a lot simpler and have a lot fewer moving parts than a piston engine, and thus have far fewer components to break. It probably wouldn't get good enough gas mileage though. AFAIK, the only times turbines have successfully been used in cars are in those experimental things that are used to break the land speed records out on the salt flats (and some of those look like planes that just don't take off, heh). As much as I like KITT though, a turbojet just wouldn't be capable of what was shown in the series, unless they wanted to state that KITT's gas mileage was about 10 gallons to the mile.
-
Akaihiryuu
- Operative
- Posts: 125
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 12:29 pm
- What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
- Contact:
Hm...I stand corrected. I got my jet engines mixed up. The turbojet is the oldest type of jet engine. The turbofan is the kind that most aircraft today use. It's related to the turbojet but it's altered a bit (primarily in the compression area) to make it more efficient at lower speeds. I guess you could say it's the same basic design though. KITT's specifications specifically say that he uses a turbojet, but turbojets are not efficient at all below about 400 km/h. Anyway, to avoid most of the thrust out the back and change most of the kinetic energy the engine produces into circular motion, the best type of engine to use is the gas turbine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_turbine
This is still at its most basic level very similar to the old turbojet, but it's been modified to work better in a ground based vehicle. In fact, the M-1 Abrams tank uses this engine. It's no larger than your average V8, but it produces over 1500 HP, and is theoretically capable of taking the M-1 up to about 60mph (quite a feat for a 100,000 pound tank). In practice, they use an engine governor to limit max speed to 45mph though, as unless the road conditions are absolutely perfect, going over that speed can damage the drivetrain and/or injure the occupants. However, a gas turbine is not capable of having an afterburner, which KITT also supposedly has ("Modified Knight Industries turbojet with afterburners"). I really don't see how what basically amounts to an F-16 engine could work in a car. KITT isn't using thrust to move (except for turbo boost, which is probably just firing the afterburners).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams
Sadly, the whole thing in Goliath where Michael mentioned that KITT's turbine blades were shot, but that he could "rig a ramjet" is impossible. Ramjets do not really function below the speed of sound, and you have to be several times the speed of sound for them to produce optimal thrust.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramjet
This is still at its most basic level very similar to the old turbojet, but it's been modified to work better in a ground based vehicle. In fact, the M-1 Abrams tank uses this engine. It's no larger than your average V8, but it produces over 1500 HP, and is theoretically capable of taking the M-1 up to about 60mph (quite a feat for a 100,000 pound tank). In practice, they use an engine governor to limit max speed to 45mph though, as unless the road conditions are absolutely perfect, going over that speed can damage the drivetrain and/or injure the occupants. However, a gas turbine is not capable of having an afterburner, which KITT also supposedly has ("Modified Knight Industries turbojet with afterburners"). I really don't see how what basically amounts to an F-16 engine could work in a car. KITT isn't using thrust to move (except for turbo boost, which is probably just firing the afterburners).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams
Sadly, the whole thing in Goliath where Michael mentioned that KITT's turbine blades were shot, but that he could "rig a ramjet" is impossible. Ramjets do not really function below the speed of sound, and you have to be several times the speed of sound for them to produce optimal thrust.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramjet
-
FuzzieDice
- KRO Podcaster (retired)
- Posts: 3333
- Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 5:55 pm
I think in the series, they used a lot of technobabble to sound impressive.
Another engine that is touted as pretty nifty is the Deisel. But not many regular cars were deisel. Though a couple GM A-Body type cars have had deisel engines, they are very very rare.
The best engine of all gas-powered ones is (I'm biased here since my car has one
) the old Iron Duke GM built (2.5L 4-Tech - no not "Tech IV" as that is not on my car's engine, it actually says "4 Tech"). These cast-iron engines are heavy, but they are very sturdy and reliable. Thing is, the weight, combined with the transmission in the front of a FWD car makes the car dip a little in the front, and the back end raised a little. Kinda like a hotrod, almost. But not that extreme. These engines get up to about 95 hp, and it's the torque that gives it the oomph it needs to really get going. Takeoff-wise, the car really can go pretty fast. But, if you try to sustain it, getting up to around 40 mph or so (about when the torque converter clutch engages on the TH-125C transmission), then it will start to loose ground. I don't fill my car's gas take maybe 2 - 4 months. I don't drive much but when I do, I do a lot of stop/start driving. Yet it's great on gas. Even at 19 years old (next month will be 19 years since it was made). BTW, this engine is a Throttle-Body Injection system with coil packs (distributorless ignition system or DIS). This car has more sensors on the engine than anything and it requires a computer to run the engine.
I love my car.
I've heard that the new 2008 Camaro will feature an 8-cyl. engine that can shut down 4 cyclinders and run on just 4 when it doesn't need the extra power. Now THAT is something!
I once knew someone who had a Geo Metro with only 3 cylinders. I thought that was rather odd. My dad had a Honda Coupe back in the 70s and it had a 2-cyl. engine! He named it "Rollerskate".
Another engine that is touted as pretty nifty is the Deisel. But not many regular cars were deisel. Though a couple GM A-Body type cars have had deisel engines, they are very very rare.
The best engine of all gas-powered ones is (I'm biased here since my car has one
) the old Iron Duke GM built (2.5L 4-Tech - no not "Tech IV" as that is not on my car's engine, it actually says "4 Tech"). These cast-iron engines are heavy, but they are very sturdy and reliable. Thing is, the weight, combined with the transmission in the front of a FWD car makes the car dip a little in the front, and the back end raised a little. Kinda like a hotrod, almost. But not that extreme. These engines get up to about 95 hp, and it's the torque that gives it the oomph it needs to really get going. Takeoff-wise, the car really can go pretty fast. But, if you try to sustain it, getting up to around 40 mph or so (about when the torque converter clutch engages on the TH-125C transmission), then it will start to loose ground. I don't fill my car's gas take maybe 2 - 4 months. I don't drive much but when I do, I do a lot of stop/start driving. Yet it's great on gas. Even at 19 years old (next month will be 19 years since it was made). BTW, this engine is a Throttle-Body Injection system with coil packs (distributorless ignition system or DIS). This car has more sensors on the engine than anything and it requires a computer to run the engine. I love my car.
I've heard that the new 2008 Camaro will feature an 8-cyl. engine that can shut down 4 cyclinders and run on just 4 when it doesn't need the extra power. Now THAT is something!
I once knew someone who had a Geo Metro with only 3 cylinders. I thought that was rather odd. My dad had a Honda Coupe back in the 70s and it had a 2-cyl. engine! He named it "Rollerskate".
-
Akaihiryuu
- Operative
- Posts: 125
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 12:29 pm
- What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
- Contact:
Wow, they're actually bringing the Camaro back? I thought it was gone for good. If they make it front wheel drive though, that will be a travesty. It'd be neat if they brought the Firebird back also, then they could use that model for KITT in the new movie. Seriously though, if that movie is made, I would like it to start with the classic KITT, Michael "retiring" (and hopefully moving to Devon's old position as the leader of FLAG), with KITT receiving a MAJOR upgrade, and someone new/younger to drive him. The possibility has been mentioned of the new character being Michael Knight's son. Ah well, they've been talking about that movie for years and nothing's happened, I don't have my hopes up.
Seriously though, if that movie is made, I would like it to start with the classic KITT, Michael "retiring" (and hopefully moving to Devon's old position as the leader of FLAG), with KITT receiving a MAJOR upgrade, and someone new/younger to drive him. The possibility has been mentioned of the new character being Michael Knight's son. Ah well, they've been talking about that movie for years and nothing's happened, I don't have my hopes up.-
KnightCrusader99
- Operative
- Posts: 209
- Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2003 10:37 am
- What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
- Location: Falmouth, Kentucky
I remember someone in high school that drive an old 70-something Caddy that could do the same thing. It was quite nifty. I didn't know that they were going to reintroduce that in the new Camaros.FuzzieDice wrote: I've heard that the new 2008 Camaro will feature an 8-cyl. engine that can shut down 4 cyclinders and run on just 4 when it doesn't need the extra power. Now THAT is something!
Yep it is coming back. It was suppossed to come back next year for the 40th Anniversary Edition, but I guess they got delayed. It was originally going to be front-wheel drive, in anticipation of the rear-wheel Monte Carlos in 2006. However, the Montes stayed FWD even with the new 5.3 V8, so the Camaro is coming back in all its RWD goodness.Akaihiryuu wrote: Wow, they're actually bringing the Camaro back? I thought it was gone for good. If they make it front wheel drive though, that will be a travesty.
I was hoping they would, since the Camaro and Firebird have always been built on the same body. They might be waiting to see how the Camaro does before reintroducing the Firebird.Akaihiryuu wrote: It'd be neat if they brought the Firebird back also, then they could use that model for KITT in the new movie.
Steve
-
Akaihiryuu
- Operative
- Posts: 125
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 12:29 pm
- What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
- Contact:
-
spyhunter
- FLAG Recruit
- Posts: 292
- Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2002 1:01 am
- What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
- Location: Near Minot, North Dakota
Here ya go:
Pretty cool, but wouldn't work very well for KITT...
I wish these car companies would just go back and make updated versions of past cars, kind of like the Mustang, however more like the original cars...
I know the molds and all of that aren't around anymore, but how hard could it be to make them again?
They always focus too much on new ideas and throw everything out the window, if they sold a brand new car that was identical to a 1982 Trans Am (with all of the kinks worked out), I think they would sell like hotcakes, because alot of us wish we had a time machine to go back and purchase about 10 of them!
If they make model cars of old cars, why not the real thing?
SH[/img]
Pretty cool, but wouldn't work very well for KITT...
I wish these car companies would just go back and make updated versions of past cars, kind of like the Mustang, however more like the original cars...
I know the molds and all of that aren't around anymore, but how hard could it be to make them again?
They always focus too much on new ideas and throw everything out the window, if they sold a brand new car that was identical to a 1982 Trans Am (with all of the kinks worked out), I think they would sell like hotcakes, because alot of us wish we had a time machine to go back and purchase about 10 of them!
If they make model cars of old cars, why not the real thing?
SH[/img]
-
FuzzieDice
- KRO Podcaster (retired)
- Posts: 3333
- Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 5:55 pm
I think KITTS sound Originated at Universal in the Early 60s
If I remember correctly I was watching an episode of "Marcus Welby, M.D."- A hospital drama produced by Universal in the late 60s through mid 70s. I remember at the beginning of one episode it took place at an airport. They was a scene when they showed commercial jets landing. As the jets passed you heard KITT's turbine sound throughout that scene. I almost fell out of my chair.
