quote:

ORIGINAL: J79Tech

Yo Franklin
I would get the same thing using the standard throttle control form the original GE parts. I guess you are just used to removing unwanted parts? No matter how you say it, we fully intend to use our J79-7a and all the original equipment to make all the power we need and when -7a does not make enough power we will haul out the big dog J79-15. the difference in HP the -7 makes 15,500 and the tweeked up -15 well we have not run the engine as of yet. However the estimate is somewhere around 19,500. S&S Turbines came up with those figures. I back them up and am looking forward to next spring when we test that engine. We will post that info. for you and the rest of the world just to set things right.

quote:

ORIGINAL: J79Tech

I still do not get it. If you are concerned about the "P" factor then so are we. Did I mention that it was NOT the intent to jam the throttle forward. I am well aware of the so called "P" factor in turbines. I stand my ground on the fully variable throttle control. Now the really important part, so does the driver. Actually ThrustSSC used a variable throttle control and Andy Breen did break the Mach1 speed record doing just what NAE is doing. I guess two teams with the same idea must be wrong?

quote:

ORIGINAL: J79Tech

Why Hell I know that, I think it is fun reading the words of the arm chair, so called experts. I get a big kick out some of the outlandish things that they have dreamed up. Anyone can read about anything via the internet. Then to take that info. then try to tell the professionals what we are doing wrong. I could not believe what Ed Shadle was telling me about a couple of these so called experts. Some of things they were discusing were just plain wrong. So I found this website signed up and now I can understand very clearly just what is going on. It is just poeple talking and not walking. If these experts are so damm good why are they not building a landspeed record challenger. How come they are not trying to break into the 800mph speed venue. Certainly it can not be money! The North American Eagle team has done everything out of pocket with no ones help. So we have a big challenge ahead of us. We will make it happen just not on anyone else's opinions. So if you so called experts would lik eto jousting bring it on. I welcome the challenge.
WB

quote:

ORIGINAL: J79Tech

I still do not get it. If you are concerned about the "P" factor then so are we. Did I mention that it was NOT the intent to jam the throttle forward. I am well aware of the so called "P" factor in turbines. I stand my ground on the fully variable throttle control. Now the really important part, so does the driver. Actually ThrustSSC used a variable throttle control and Andy Breen did break the Mach1 speed record doing just what NAE is doing. I guess two teams with the same idea must be wrong?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Guest

I did the design calculations for the centrifuge that Art Arfons built in 1991 to become reacclimated to g-forces after encountering vision problems during his 1990 attempt. Arfons had decided a centrifuge would be the safest and most convenient solution but Wright Patterson wanted $10,000 A DAY to use their centrifuge. I settled on a thirty foot arm turning at 15 rpm to produce a force 3g to give Arfons a 1g margin over the maximum 2g acceleration of Green Monster #27. Arfons centrifuge training worked. Although he encountered handling problems with the car in 1991 he could see fine.

Franklin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Guest

What in the wide, wide world of sports does Gary Swenson have to do with land speed cars? I have seen his name associated with Craig Breedlove several times on this post and am at a loss to find a connection. As far as I know he drove the original North American Eagle car that Rick Kikes built but only during a dragstrip test session and I belive he crashed on that run. Also whatever happened to that car?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Guest

Oh OK. By the way I think you guys are doing a great job with your project. Good luck in the future. Also be careful inviting Franklin to your work site! He just may show up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GsxrJack

Its really too bad General Electric wont get more involved in supplying engines and engineering to land speed records...cause i know once the land speed record is broken using a GE engine ill read about it in the GE newsletters...just like a few years ago when some fast boat using GE lm1600's set a crossing the atlantic speed record it was all over the GE newsletters..course they may have bought the engines new from GE which would give them tech support...

then again , if something went wrong with a land speed record with GE support, the bad publicity wouldnt be in the companys best interest....

quote:

ORIGINAL: J79Tech

quote:

ORIGINAL: Guest

I did the design calculations for the centrifuge that Art Arfons built in 1991 to become reacclimated to g-forces after encountering vision problems during his 1990 attempt. Arfons had decided a centrifuge would be the safest and most convenient solution but Wright Patterson wanted $10,000 A DAY to use their centrifuge. I settled on a thirty foot arm turning at 15 rpm to produce a force 3g to give Arfons a 1g margin over the maximum 2g acceleration of Green Monster #27. Arfons centrifuge training worked. Although he encountered handling problems with the car in 1991 he could see fine.

Franklin

Franklin
What has this got to do with building a Jetcar?
It would seem to me that you do not grasp the idea of what we are doing at NAE. This is not a quarter mile racecar! What is the best speed a jetcar makes in 1/4 mile 200-300mph. We are not, I repeat not going to do at type of racing. We intend to travel at speeds of 800+mph. I do not understand all the helpful ideas you come up with. Some are good and some are bad, I mean really bad. The type of racing you talk about just does fit what we are doing! Then equally important you do not understand that you are suggesting old technology. Sure the stuff worked years ago but it is way behing the times. NAE is designing, building and testing with ideas that are brand new never tried before stuff. We have no intent to follow the old ways. We are not worried about CG of engine and thrust, or for that matter torgue as others have mentioned. The F-104 fuselage had been modified for ground operations the way we see fit to modify it. Mid-span suspension was thought up long before you showed up. Thrust from the J79 with fully functional production A/B is not the problem you think it is. If we take three to four miles to get up speed so what. The fully throttlable engine will allow us to take our time to build speed. As for The driver seeing high 'G' loads well that is not something we intend to subject him to. The bit about tunnel vision sure it exsists and it a serious thing. Having experienced a ride in the F-4D 100 feet off the ground travelling at Mach2 tells me everything I need to know about that. Our driver will not be in that realm for that long. With automated systems you have not even thought about. We will design and build in systems to make it safe. That right a computer systems to monitor the car while running. That suspension system you talked about earlier well I am afraid our is bit more advanced. The fact we have canards to offset thrust angle, means we can use the full A/B. If the engine is behind the CG so what. The suspension, canards and throttle will control that and the ground effects that we will build in well what can I say. There is no exact science to building high speed jet cars. So for you to jab at us like we have no idea of what we are doing well that is just B.S. We work on our car every Saturday and we get closer to our goal inspite of of what you or other may say or think. I do believe that in your own way to just trying to help. From what I see you are just not informed enough to comment on things you do not understand. You have tossed in opinions about Art Arfons, Bob Motz, Craig Breedlove, Austin Coil, Ron Ayers who worked on ThrustSSC with Richard Noble, how about Gary Swenson, Rosco McGlashon and Al Teague. All these gentleman are my hero's and applaud their programs and the ground work they have covered. Each team like NAE has a different idea of how to make things work. We fully intend to do our project as we see fit. The day you join our team and make contributions then we can take you seriously. By the way just what project have you worked on? Got any picture you would like to share? All you or anyone else needs to do is look at NAE's site to see the progress. So if the weak rebutals and repeating of earlier statements is the best you can do. I can only say give it up, learn more about the new technology. That way you won't sound so obtuse and uneducated. Really to our team you are a joke, I am sure that other's see it the same way. As Ed sHadle said earlier "get a life"

quote:

ORIGINAL: Guest

quote:

ORIGINAL: J79Tech

quote:

ORIGINAL: Guest

I did the design calculations for the centrifuge that Art Arfons built in 1991 to become reacclimated to g-forces after encountering vision problems during his 1990 attempt. Arfons had decided a centrifuge would be the safest and most convenient solution but Wright Patterson wanted $10,000 A DAY to use their centrifuge. I settled on a thirty foot arm turning at 15 rpm to produce a force 3g to give Arfons a 1g margin over the maximum 2g acceleration of Green Monster #27. Arfons centrifuge training worked. Although he encountered handling problems with the car in 1991 he could see fine.

Franklin

Franklin
What has this got to do with building a Jetcar?
It would seem to me that you do not grasp the idea of what we are doing at NAE. This is not a quarter mile racecar! What is the best speed a jetcar makes in 1/4 mile 200-300mph. We are not, I repeat not going to do at type of racing. We intend to travel at speeds of 800+mph. I do not understand all the helpful ideas you come up with. Some are good and some are bad, I mean really bad. The type of racing you talk about just does fit what we are doing! Then equally important you do not understand that you are suggesting old technology. Sure the stuff worked years ago but it is way behing the times. NAE is designing, building and testing with ideas that are brand new never tried before stuff. We have no intent to follow the old ways. We are not worried about CG of engine and thrust, or for that matter torgue as others have mentioned. The F-104 fuselage had been modified for ground operations the way we see fit to modify it. Mid-span suspension was thought up long before you showed up. Thrust from the J79 with fully functional production A/B is not the problem you think it is. If we take three to four miles to get up speed so what. The fully throttlable engine will allow us to take our time to build speed. As for The driver seeing high 'G' loads well that is not something we intend to subject him to. The bit about tunnel vision sure it exsists and it a serious thing. Having experienced a ride in the F-4D 100 feet off the ground travelling at Mach2 tells me everything I need to know about that. Our driver will not be in that realm for that long. With automated systems you have not even thought about. We will design and build in systems to make it safe. That right a computer systems to monitor the car while running. That suspension system you talked about earlier well I am afraid our is bit more advanced. The fact we have canards to offset thrust angle, means we can use the full A/B. If the engine is behind the CG so what. The suspension, canards and throttle will control that and the ground effects that we will build in well what can I say. There is no exact science to building high speed jet cars. So for you to jab at us like we have no idea of what we are doing well that is just B.S. We work on our car every Saturday and we get closer to our goal inspite of of what you or other may say or think. I do believe that in your own way to just trying to help. From what I see you are just not informed enough to comment on things you do not understand. You have tossed in opinions about Art Arfons, Bob Motz, Craig Breedlove, Austin Coil, Ron Ayers who worked on ThrustSSC with Richard Noble, how about Gary Swenson, Rosco McGlashon and Al Teague. All these gentleman are my hero's and applaud their programs and the ground work they have covered. Each team like NAE has a different idea of how to make things work. We fully intend to do our project as we see fit. The day you join our team and make contributions then we can take you seriously. By the way just what project have you worked on? Got any picture you would like to share? All you or anyone else needs to do is look at NAE's site to see the progress. So if the weak rebutals and repeating of earlier statements is the best you can do. I can only say give it up, learn more about the new technology. That way you won't sound so obtuse and uneducated. Really to our team you are a joke, I am sure that other's see it the same way. As Ed sHadle said earlier "get a life"

For thing, doing the design calculations on Arfons centrifuge means I know how fast a given car with a given amount of thrust will accelerate before aero drag starts taking effect.

"If the engine is behind the CG so what. The suspension, canards and throttle will control that and the ground effects that we will build in well what can I say." The engine, being the single heaviest mass in the car, is what DICTATES WHERE THE C.G. IS LOCATED.

"We are not worried about CG of engine and thrust, or for that matter torgue as others have mentioned." Too bad, because airflow over the car generating forces of thousands of pounds WILL CARE where the center of gravity is located. And by that I mean the CAR'S center of gravity, NOT "CG of engine."

"Mid-span suspension was thought up long before you showed up." I recommended midship suspension to Ed Shadle five years ago. How long have you been involved in the project?

"If we take three to four miles to get up speed so what. The fully throttlable engine will allow us to take our time to build speed." Why would you want to take your time getting up to speed? There is no benefit to it. All it does is add extra wear and tear to the chassis and engine (look what the result was of all the extra mileage in Arfons 1966 attempt). Both the Blue Flame and the Budweiser rocket car were reaching 650 mph in a distance of 7,000 to 8,000 feet.

"The fact we have canards to offset thrust angle, means we can use the full A/B. If the engine is behind the CG so what. The suspension, canards and throttle will control that and the ground effects that we will build in well what can I say." What is important is whether the thrust vector goes under, through or above the center of gravity, and where the thrust vector intersects the ground in relation to the front suspension. The canards have no influence over where the thrust vector goes in relationship to the center of gravity.

"The bit about tunnel vision sure it exsists and it a serious thing. Having experienced a ride in the F-4D 100 feet off the ground travelling at Mach2 tells me everything I need to know about that. " In 1960 Athol Graham thought he had learned everything he needed to know at speeds below 300 mph. Look what happened to him. As far as tunnel vision is concerned, get your driver acclimated to 3g acceleration before he even gets in the car and clear vision at 2g acceleration will be a total nonissue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: J79Tech

quote:

ORIGINAL: GsxrJack

Its really too bad General Electric wont get more involved in supplying engines and engineering to land speed records...cause i know once the land speed record is broken using a GE engine ill read about it in the GE newsletters...just like a few years ago when some fast boat using GE lm1600's set a crossing the atlantic speed record it was all over the GE newsletters..course they may have bought the engines new from GE which would give them tech support...

then again , if something went wrong with a land speed record with GE support, the bad publicity wouldnt be in the companys best interest....

I got one up on the folks at GE. I have already been turned down. My seceret weapon is S&S Turbines. GE has been trying to purchase the new technology form Robin Sipe, so far Robin will not budge. GE wants this stuff but does not want to pay for it. So if they write any articles or try to claim credit for our endeavor. How many ways can you spell law suit? I really do not want to play rough, but I do have a letter from their rep's that says no thank you. The weak excuse was the engine is not being used for it's original intent. We got the same crap form Lockheed about the F-104, They have valuable information and they will not share it. What it all boils down to liabilities. The big companies do not want to get sued if something goes wrong. So does that mean if it goes right, they should allowed to take credit for it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Guest

quote:

ORIGINAL: Guest

quote:

ORIGINAL: J79Tech

quote:

ORIGINAL: Guest

I did the design calculations for the centrifuge that Art Arfons built in 1991 to become reacclimated to g-forces after encountering vision problems during his 1990 attempt. Arfons had decided a centrifuge would be the safest and most convenient solution but Wright Patterson wanted $10,000 A DAY to use their centrifuge. I settled on a thirty foot arm turning at 15 rpm to produce a force 3g to give Arfons a 1g margin over the maximum 2g acceleration of Green Monster #27. Arfons centrifuge training worked. Although he encountered handling problems with the car in 1991 he could see fine.

Franklin

Franklin
What has this got to do with building a Jetcar?
It would seem to me that you do not grasp the idea of what we are doing at NAE. This is not a quarter mile racecar! What is the best speed a jetcar makes in 1/4 mile 200-300mph. We are not, I repeat not going to do at type of racing. We intend to travel at speeds of 800+mph. I do not understand all the helpful ideas you come up with. Some are good and some are bad, I mean really bad. The type of racing you talk about just does fit what we are doing! Then equally important you do not understand that you are suggesting old technology. Sure the stuff worked years ago but it is way behing the times. NAE is designing, building and testing with ideas that are brand new never tried before stuff. We have no intent to follow the old ways. We are not worried about CG of engine and thrust, or for that matter torgue as others have mentioned. The F-104 fuselage had been modified for ground operations the way we see fit to modify it. Mid-span suspension was thought up long before you showed up. Thrust from the J79 with fully functional production A/B is not the problem you think it is. If we take three to four miles to get up speed so what. The fully throttlable engine will allow us to take our time to build speed. As for The driver seeing high 'G' loads well that is not something we intend to subject him to. The bit about tunnel vision sure it exsists and it a serious thing. Having experienced a ride in the F-4D 100 feet off the ground travelling at Mach2 tells me everything I need to know about that. Our driver will not be in that realm for that long. With automated systems you have not even thought about. We will design and build in systems to make it safe. That right a computer systems to monitor the car while running. That suspension system you talked about earlier well I am afraid our is bit more advanced. The fact we have canards to offset thrust angle, means we can use the full A/B. If the engine is behind the CG so what. The suspension, canards and throttle will control that and the ground effects that we will build in well what can I say. There is no exact science to building high speed jet cars. So for you to jab at us like we have no idea of what we are doing well that is just B.S. We work on our car every Saturday and we get closer to our goal inspite of of what you or other may say or think. I do believe that in your own way to just trying to help. From what I see you are just not informed enough to comment on things you do not understand. You have tossed in opinions about Art Arfons, Bob Motz, Craig Breedlove, Austin Coil, Ron Ayers who worked on ThrustSSC with Richard Noble, how about Gary Swenson, Rosco McGlashon and Al Teague. All these gentleman are my hero's and applaud their programs and the ground work they have covered. Each team like NAE has a different idea of how to make things work. We fully intend to do our project as we see fit. The day you join our team and make contributions then we can take you seriously. By the way just what project have you worked on? Got any picture you would like to share? All you or anyone else needs to do is look at NAE's site to see the progress. So if the weak rebutals and repeating of earlier statements is the best you can do. I can only say give it up, learn more about the new technology. That way you won't sound so obtuse and uneducated. Really to our team you are a joke, I am sure that other's see it the same way. As Ed sHadle said earlier "get a life"

For thing, doing the design calculations on Arfons centrifuge means I know how fast a given car with a given amount of thrust will accelerate before aero drag starts taking effect.

"If the engine is behind the CG so what. The suspension, canards and throttle will control that and the ground effects that we will build in well what can I say." The engine, being the single heaviest mass in the car, is what DICTATES WHERE THE C.G. IS LOCATED.

"We are not worried about CG of engine and thrust, or for that matter torgue as others have mentioned." Too bad, because airflow over the car generating forces of thousands of pounds WILL CARE where the center of gravity is located. And by that I mean the CAR'S center of gravity, NOT "CG of engine."

"Mid-span suspension was thought up long before you showed up." I recommended midship suspension to Ed Shadle five years ago. How long have you been involved in the project?

"If we take three to four miles to get up speed so what. The fully throttlable engine will allow us to take our time to build speed." Why would you want to take your time getting up to speed? There is no benefit to it. All it does is add extra wear and tear to the chassis and engine (look what the result was of all the extra mileage in Arfons 1966 attempt). Both the Blue Flame and the Budweiser rocket car were reaching 650 mph in a distance of 7,000 to 8,000 feet.

"The fact we have canards to offset thrust angle, means we can use the full A/B. If the engine is behind the CG so what. The suspension, canards and throttle will control that and the ground effects that we will build in well what can I say." What is important is whether the thrust vector goes under, through or above the center of gravity, and where the thrust vector intersects the ground in relation to the front suspension. The canards have no influence over where the thrust vector goes in relationship to the center of gravity.

"The bit about tunnel vision sure it exsists and it a serious thing. Having experienced a ride in the F-4D 100 feet off the ground travelling at Mach2 tells me everything I need to know about that. " In 1960 Athol Graham thought he had learned everything he needed to know at speeds below 300 mph. Look what happened to him. As far as tunnel vision is concerned, get your driver acclimated to 3g acceleration before he even gets in the car and clear vision at 2g acceleration will be a total nonissue.

Franklin here way go again!
The Centrifuge is a very good idea I will grant you that. I actually traveled in one at 4.5G's for my AirForce flying crew chief program. It is great stuff if you have never tried it you should. If you have then great you know what is like. However the tunnel vision thing happens when one travels at speed, any speed, the faster you go the worse it gets. You can not argue that point it is a fact. The G load factor is independant of how fast you travel as long as the acceleration is constant and/or gradual. If we take our time getting up to speed so what, it does not subject the airframe or the driver to any appericable loading and the suspension will be built strong enough to take this wear and tare. If we have the area to run what difference does it make? Wear and tear will be there no matter what you do or how fast you go. I really do disagree with your point about the acceleration, Granted if space or run distance matters then sure give it all you got. If we where racing a 1/4 mile than balls to the wall and let the car and driver absorb all the g loading associated with it. What ever that might be. There is still room for discussion on that. I do agree to the point of starting out at 100% and tossing in A/B. Then your point of using a jet dragster style enigne configuration would be the way to go. That is where your point gets lost. We are not designing a car for the 1/4 mile drag strip!!!!
The whole thing about CG , I am amazed. Wow! Yes Franklin being a pilot and having worked around Boeing engineers for many years. I do know about the many differences in and where those CG areas are located. Were one puts things on a vehicle does make a difference. We have had our car wieghed by certified scales. Without the engine and fuel and other realted systems. We will weigh the car with everything is installed. The weigh measurements are designed to show CG loading. Yes Franklin the actual vehicle center of gravity for the whole car with everything installed. Surely you knew that we would be doing that didn't you. Thrust line makes a difference. All true words. You keep missing the point. You believe that we at NAE are beginers, that we do not look at this kinda stuff. Why even the mid-span suspension is your idea? Truth be told your ideas maybe sound and unrefutable. Just alittle late. Ed and Kieth had considered many of YOUR ideas long before you spoke up. I know Ed has shown me the original designs dated somewhere around 1997. He and Keith Zanghi thought about using the F-104 or a military jet long before you came on the seen. I have been with the team for three years. My job the low speed J79 engine is just about done for the low to intermidate speeds! I also do many other tasks. Like calculating CG, hydraulics, fuel, steering, canards, wiring, you know things that a crew chief should know how do. Why we at NAE are still planning what the aerodynamic fairing's will look like. Aero drag is a major consideration and in a home built car it is even a bigger problem. However we have a F-104 built by Lockheed and design by Kelly Johnson. Did I miss something here? One of the most aerodynamic vehicles to ever fly. As long as you did not try to turn it! A vehicle that broke many flight records, why our aircraft has a long histroy of great achievements already. It is our belief that if you already have many of the aerodynamic problems solved you are ahead of the game. Yes there are many yet to be worked out and as many more that are waiting to be discovered. That is what testing is about. Oh I guess you missed that part. As I mentioned before jet cars are not a science, they are an expirement, with a large chuck of potential disaster tossed in. The fact is we will still build our ultra high speed jet car the way we see fit. I think you just like to argue about stuff for the sake of agruement well you have met your match and challenge here with me. I can sit at my computer and type away an argument and be just as stubborn. You have to give me credit for that point, I just get a kick out of it. Good maybe something will be stirred up and finally make sense. Still everything you have quoted and offered for argument is nothing new!!!!!! Give me something that has not already been thought up. Come on Franklin is this the very best you can do?