RE: F-104 car team not doing things in integrated way

RE: F-104 car team not doing things in integrated way (Full Version)

All Forums >> [JETWEBB.COM FORUM'S] >> Car & Drive Talk

Message

Guest -> RE: F-104 car team not doing things in integrated way (9/10/2004 10:10:26 AM)
Oh yeah, I almost forgot. In Top Fuel you have guys over 70 years getting hit with an INSTANT 5g. I don't hear Garlits and Karamisenes complaining about not being able to see where they're going.

Guest -> RE: F-104 car team not doing things in integrated way (9/10/2004 10:16:45 AM)
So which jet car did you actually drive??

Guest -> RE: F-104 car team not doing things in integrated way (9/10/2004 10:29:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Guest So which jet car did you actually drive?? From October of 1990 to October of 1996, I was the last person in the world to have in person observed attempts on both the World Land Speed Record and the World Water Speed Record (having watched Craig Arfons tragic 1989 attempt and Art Arfons 1990 attempt). I have been around jet cars for over 30 years. I saw the evolution of jet dragsters from the first generation of heavyweights such as Fred Sibley's U.S.1 (a.k.a. the Valkyrie) to their eventual replacement by rail style lightweights beginning with the J-85 cars of Craig Arfons and Wayne Knuth. I watched these lightweights (dragsters and Funny Cars) further evolve from full suspension to all rigid chassis that more closely resembled a seventies rocket dragster chassis than it did the original J-85 cars run by Craig Arfons and Wayne Knuth.

Guest -> RE: F-104 car team not doing things in integrated way (9/10/2004 10:59:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Guest Oh yeah, I almost forgot. In Top Fuel you have guys over 70 years getting hit with an INSTANT 5g. I don't hear Garlits and Karamisenes complaining about not being able to see where they're going. Yup you are right on. I would agree 5g's no problem. The whole point to the discussion was missed. Why should we have to do something if it is not necessary. Certainly the airframe can take it, the suspension and even the driver can take it. If we only had a short distance to travel, I mean this if we only had say a 1/4 mile to two miles, Then sure getting up to max speed in the shortest distance would be the way to go. If that is what we where attempting to do. Drag racing and long distance high speed travel are two different worlds. What works in one might not work in the other.

Guest -> RE: F-104 car team not doing things in integrated way (9/10/2004 11:20:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Guest 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? Aside from being a pilot myself and having pulled enough g while recovering from an inverted spin (5g negative) to go through all the GLOC symptoms up to and including momentary total blindness, I'm also the ONLY one in this conversation who has FIRSTHAND experience with what happens when a 64 year old man trains in a centrifuge at 3g then gets in a jet car accelerating at 2g. Guess what? Tunnel vision NOT a problem. "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. " No F4 Phantom has ever gone Mach 2 100 feet off the ground. The record broken by Darryl Greenemeyer with an official speed of 986 mph was set by a Navy F4 with a speed of 931 mph. Unofficially, due to problems in verification with the timing equipment, Greenemeyer clocked 1,010 mph. "However we have a F-104 built by Lockheed and design by Kelly Johnson. Did I miss something here?" YES. Kelly Johnson designed an AIRPLANE not a car. In fact, Johnson designed an airplane with built in INSTABILITY so that it would have the maneuverability needed for combat. Having closely followed the Thrust SSC effort, I was by the end of 1997 already familiar with the use of active suspension to vary the ground clearance and pitch of a supersonic jet car to optimize aerodynamics for both supersonic and subsonic speeds. Besides the fact midship suspension on an F-104 based car puts the main load bearing suspension directly under the center of gravity and thus makes it much easier for active suspension to vary the ground clearance without affecting the car's pitch, there is also a series of closely spaced bulkheads in the F-104's fuselage midsection (since this is where the wing's attach) thus making it the strongest part of the fuselage. So I didn't need anyone from the NAE team to explain to me the dynamic and structural reasons for using midship suspension. That is what I figured just re saying the same old thing. You did get one thing right, The F-4D at 100 feet does not go mach2 even at speeds of 800 to 1000mph the point is still the same. If tunnel vision is not a problem than what was the point of conversation in the first place. It does not matter! As for the F-104 we know it is an airplane. We just turned it into a car. The point was only refering to the drag factor. A vehicle with low drag with function better to a point. Can you tell me what that is? My best guess is probably not, no one can. The very best engineers are having a tough time with this one. High speed travel close to the ground is very dangerous. Anyone who attempts this kind of racing steps into the arena with no help from professionals. The F-104 will still be unstable when we make our runs, the object make it work in your favor. Will that be easy, no! I really do see your point about the active suspension that was figured in to the NAE during the planning in the early stages. We are continuly looking at better ways to build it. We know that mid-suspension was actually the production wheel well for the main landing gear. With Five wheels on the ground, one up front two mid-span and two at the rear of the vehicle we should see a jump in ground run stablitiy. The biggest trick for this vehicle will be to keep it on the ground. The F-104 is a lifting body style aircraft. That is an ironic statment, imagine trying to use a totally unstable vehicle to break a landspeed record. I even have to step back sometimes and laugh to myself. What in the wide world of sports am I doing this for. I am doing it because it has never been tried. For every great deed there has been at least twenty failures. We have a fifty fifty chance, hero or zero, there is fine line to walk. However what makes you think that you are any better at figuring this stuff out? I still only see a minimal effort on your part to be informative. You are still commentting on non-essencial stuff. That was and is the point to me egging you on. I just want to find out what you are made of. I got my answer. WB

Guest -> RE: F-104 car team not doing things in integrated way (9/10/2004 11:28:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: J79Tech quote: ORIGINAL: Guest Oh yeah, I almost forgot. In Top Fuel you have guys over 70 years getting hit with an INSTANT 5g. I don't hear Garlits and Karamisenes complaining about not being able to see where they're going. Yup you are right on. I would agree 5g's no problem. The whole point to the discussion was missed. Why should we have to do something if it is not necessary. Certainly the airframe can take it, the suspension and even the driver can take it. If we only had a short distance to travel, I mean this if we only had say a 1/4 mile to two miles, Then sure getting up to max speed in the shortest distance would be the way to go. If that is what we where attempting to do. Drag racing and long distance high speed travel are two different worlds. What works in one might not work in the other. If the dynamics on a car are correct you don't need to waste a lot of time and effort running it back and forth. All that mileage accumulated on the Thrust SS was the result of (A) the car not being able to accelerate at even 2g in the first place (B) all the time spent making adjustments and modifications to the rear steering to get it to work and (C) adjustments to the active suspension. Art Arfons original J-79 car clocked 571 mph on only its fifth timed run. Not only was Walt Arfons Wingfoot Express II rocket car hitting 500 mph by only its fourth or fifth run, it was achieving this speed in less than two miles with a burn time (from the two stage firing of the JATOs) of about 25 seconds. Accelerating a car four or five miles when it might need only two or three miles simply subjects the structure and suspension to that many more vibration cycles and other wear and tear while accomplishing nothing. The Blue Flame reached 650 mph in about 20 seconds after a distance of about one and a half miles. The Budweiser rocket car in only a 20 second burn time may have gone as fast as 700 mph after traveling one and a half miles.

Guest -> RE: F-104 car team not doing things in integrated way (9/10/2004 11:35:44 AM)
quote: However what makes you think that you are any better at figuring this stuff out? I still only see a minimal effort on your part to be informative. You are still commentting on non-essencial stuff. That was and is the point to me egging you on. I just want to find out what you are made of. I got my answer For one thing, I've BEEN THERE (Bonneville, October 1990) when someone ran a land speed car that proved to be a lifting body. For 1990, Arfons converted Green Monster #27 to a car and cut off the highly curved top portion of the inlet scoop that contributed to the vehicle's blowover in 1989 when he ran it as a motorcycle. On his second run with the car Arfons clocked 338 mph through the mile. He later saw a photo which indicated that the self adjusting canards (linked to the movement of the front suspension) had moved close to their maximum deflection. In profile, Green Monster #27 is shaped a lot like an F-104.

Guest -> RE: F-104 car team not doing things in integrated way (9/10/2004 11:54:53 AM)
So again, per your post which jet car did you ACTUALLY drive, not watch, see, hear, been near, or dreamed about?????

Guest -> RE: F-104 car team not doing things in integrated way (9/10/2004 2:27:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Guest So again, per your post which jet car did you ACTUALLY drive, not watch, see, hear, been near, or dreamed about????? Irrelevant crap asked by an ignorant person who wants to let "credentials" do his thinking for him instead of trying to grasp the facts presented.

Guest -> RE: F-104 car team not doing things in integrated way (9/10/2004 2:59:41 PM)
In fact, irrelevant crap asked by a person so ignorant he doesn't know that only a handful of jet cars have ever been driven by the people who also built them.

Guest -> RE: F-104 car team not doing things in integrated way (9/10/2004 3:07:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: J79Tech quote: ORIGINAL: Guest Oh yeah, I almost forgot. In Top Fuel you have guys over 70 years getting hit with an INSTANT 5g. I don't hear Garlits and Karamisenes complaining about not being able to see where they're going. Yup you are right on. I would agree 5g's no problem. The whole point to the discussion was missed. Why should we have to do something if it is not necessary. Certainly the airframe can take it, the suspension and even the driver can take it. If we only had a short distance to travel, I mean this if we only had say a 1/4 mile to two miles, Then sure getting up to max speed in the shortest distance would be the way to go. If that is what we where attempting to do. Drag racing and long distance high speed travel are two different worlds. What works in one might not work in the other. http://www.americanjetcars.com/bonneville/bonngia10.htm Considering that NAE is A LOT heavier than Craig Breedlove's Spirit of America - Sonic I, without afterburner the NAE won't even be a 500 mph car. So why waste a lot of time doing trial runs in dry thrust when you'll have to go to burner a long time before you even get close to Mach 1 in the first place? Franklin

Guest -> RE: F-104 car team not doing things in integrated way (9/10/2004 3:22:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: J79Tech quote: ORIGINAL: Guest Oh yeah, I almost forgot. In Top Fuel you have guys over 70 years getting hit with an INSTANT 5g. I don't hear Garlits and Karamisenes complaining about not being able to see where they're going. Yup you are right on. I would agree 5g's no problem. The whole point to the discussion was missed. Why should we have to do something if it is not necessary. Certainly the airframe can take it, the suspension and even the driver can take it. If we only had a short distance to travel, I mean this if we only had say a 1/4 mile to two miles, Then sure getting up to max speed in the shortest distance would be the way to go. If that is what we where attempting to do. Drag racing and long distance high speed travel are two different worlds. What works in one might not work in the other. The last record ever set by a jet car using dry thrust only was 526 mph in 1964 by Craig Breedlove with his nonafterburning Spirit of America powered by a J-47 rated at about 5,500 lbs thrust. In 1965 when Breedlove returned to Bonneville with his J-79 powered Spirit of America - Sonic I the best he could do without burner was 518 mph, not even as fast as his original Spirit of America.

Guest -> RE: F-104 car team not doing things in integrated way (9/10/2004 4:01:05 PM)
How is it crap when all that was ask was to be specific on the jet car driven. You posted "I'm also the ONLY one in this conversation who has FIRSTHAND experience with what happens when a 64 year old man trains in a centrifuge at 3g then gets in a jet car accelerating at 2g. So which jet car did you have FIRST HAND experience in. I don't care if your theories are correct or not. It is for LSR not drag racing anyway, just wanting to know which car it was.

Guest -> RE: F-104 car team not doing things in integrated way (9/11/2004 9:26:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Guest How is it crap when all that was ask was to be specific on the jet car driven. You posted "I'm also the ONLY one in this conversation who has FIRSTHAND experience with what happens when a 64 year old man trains in a centrifuge at 3g then gets in a jet car accelerating at 2g. So which jet car did you have FIRST HAND experience in. I don't care if your theories are correct or not. It is for LSR not drag racing anyway, just wanting to know which car it was. FIGURE IT OUT, dumbass. There has only been ONE instance in which a 64 year old man has trained in a centrifuge prior to driving a jet car.

Guest -> RE: F-104 car team not doing things in integrated way (9/11/2004 9:55:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: J79Tech quote: ORIGINAL: Guest Oh yeah, I almost forgot. In Top Fuel you have guys over 70 years getting hit with an INSTANT 5g. I don't hear Garlits and Karamisenes complaining about not being able to see where they're going. Yup you are right on. I would agree 5g's no problem. The whole point to the discussion was missed. Why should we have to do something if it is not necessary. Certainly the airframe can take it, the suspension and even the driver can take it. If we only had a short distance to travel, I mean this if we only had say a 1/4 mile to two miles, Then sure getting up to max speed in the shortest distance would be the way to go. If that is what we where attempting to do. Drag racing and long distance high speed travel are two different worlds. What works in one might not work in the other. "Initial test runs of the North American Eagle™ world land speed record challenger will be conducted at Grant County Airport in Moses Lake, Washington. The former B-52 runway is 13,500 ft. long and will allow enough room for the NAE™ to get up to 350 MPH. During our runs the aluminum wheels will be replaced with high speed aircraft tires: Running on asphalt would be too slippery and rough on the aluminum wheels. Moses Lake is in the team's "back yard" and will allow us to test our data acquisition systems, refueling and starting procedures in a relatively controlled human-friendly environment." If you want to get a 13,000 lb car up to 350 mph on a 13,500 ft track the faster the car accelerates to 350 mph the more distance you're going to have for stopping. That means getting used to bringing the engine up to 100% and launching the car in burner. Franklin

Guest -> RE: F-104 car team not doing things in integrated way (9/11/2004 10:11:09 AM)
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? http://www.landspeed.com/files/acceleration_estimates2.pdf Gee, that's interesting. The acceleration curve presented on NAE'S OWN WEBSITE is based on the car launching at full thrust IN BURNER.

Guest -> RE: F-104 car team not doing things in integrated way (9/11/2004 10:19:13 AM)
http://www.landspeed.com/files/acceleration_estimates2.pdf Unfortunately, the drag coefficients calculated for the NAE are unrealistically low. If the decimal point were moved to the right one place the drag coefficients would be much more in the ballpark. Even land speed cars don't have drag coefficients where the first digit to the right of the decimal point is a zero. For example, the drag coefficient for the Summers brothers Goldenrod was around .11 to .15 while The Blue Flame had a subsonic drag coefficient of .22 according to wind tunnel tests done at Ohio State.

Guest -> RE: F-104 car team not doing things in integrated way (9/11/2004 10:28:44 AM)
http://www.machinedesign.com/asp/viewSelectedArticle.asp?strArticleId=55920&srtSite=MDSitev The drag coefficient for Ohio State's "Buckeye Bullet", the first electric car to go 300 mph, is about .30 based on Ohio State's own wind tunnel tests. Why should an F-104 based car -- an aerodynamically much dirtier configuration compared to the Buckeye Bullet -- not have a drag coefficient at least that high?

Guest -> RE: F-104 car team not doing things in integrated way (9/13/2004 3:47:26 PM)
Franklin I would like to know something. You keep this discussion going about things from the past. All your facts and figures are history, ancient history. NAE is intending to go were no other team has gone. Granted the past stuff to some degree did work. The whole team read the book Richard Nobel wrote regarding his experience leading up to the ThrustSSC breaking the Mach 1 sound barrier. Do some investigating on that car and get back to me. I do believe that their car was heavy and was under thrust to weight. Having a heavy car does change the program. If thrust to weight ratios are not right the car will not get out of its own way. You are correct about overcoming the drag penalty. We have started out with a proven design, so much of the ground work is already laid down. The F-104 may be dirty in your opinion. If you know the exact figures give them up. We could not find any and Lockheed with not give them up. Even some of the best local engineers and local college programs are still scratching their heads trying to get us figures. Quote what you will about other vehicles, they still would have little to do with this project based solely on the different configuration. If we had started from scratch then we could have gotten help in the design and built something way different. The figures would be in our hands and we could post accurate stuff. What has been posted by Jon Higley may or may not be accurate. The team had to post something so we used our best guess. Those figures are off and by how much well we do not know. Once again the team has experience about testing, Steve Wallace and myself have been involved with Boeing and Flight testing for many years. Granted this is not the same thing, however the approach is the same. Start out with low speed. Test the new technology in Permanent Magnetic Brakes and Low Speed Drag/Parachutes, (keep in mind these chutes are a different design from standard dragster type). Test the canard and wheel suspension systems. Integrate the computer system with strain gauge, temp sensor, vibration sensor, fuel monitoring, throttle angle, weight on wheels, angle of attack, wheel speed sensors and about fifty other systems we will be testing. Take a look on the web site and find the testing area for all the stuff that is planned. I will give you the point about other teams not wasting time getting up to speed as fast as they could. I would love to do that and just wing it and make speed. Let me ask you these questions. How many of the past teams took the time to record and analyze their data? How many teams recorded video and sub-systems while the vehicle was under operation? How many teams sold their information to anyone who might need that data? I know that ThrustSSC did some data collecting. If anyone else did then that would be the data that might help us. The whole team is looking on the internet and in achieves for the data. It just does not exist! So it is our intent to do just that. Record everything for future use. If it seems like a waste of time so be it, NAE and some of it's members have other thoughts regarding the data. Call it a continuation of the project. Well enough of that subject. Did you know that Chuck Yeager used a rocket motor for his altitude record in the F-104? Sure you did. That is another thing the team has discussed. If during our testing we find that the car is underpowered. We have a -15 turbine that tweaked up can make 19,000 pound of thrust. Sure that will reduce it's life. But the new technology makes the engine much stronger and able to take that punishment. Again Robin Sipe from S&S Turbines and I have discussed that part extensively. We will test the -15 for that type of operation. What we are starting out with is a J79-7 engine that makes 15,500 pound of thrust. No this engine will not be used for the actual high speed runs. We already know that part. The -7 or -11 that was originally fit to the F-104 was underpowered on the ground. Our intent is use this engine until we need more power. My extensive knowledge coupled together with Robin' extensive knowledge will get us there. Then if we still can not make enough thrust, then we will pull out the JATO or ROCKET motors and make what we need. Incase you did not know this part, the -7 engine at idle consumes 4.5gals/min at 100%mil about 40gal/min and at max A/B 140gal/min. our fuel tank holds around 400 gals, my figures show that we will use every drop on each run. Yup that is expensive. It would not matter if we used full on or variable dry thrust and your style of A/B for dragsters. The fuel consumption would be the same, allot. So by using the variable thrust system from the original configuration we cut that fuel burn down during testing. Did you think about that part? If you did great if not well, the point is I did. When we went up to S&S Turbines to test the -7 engine. ED and the team thought that with the A/B operating the engine burned just over 40gal/min. The whole time I knew those figures were very low. They have never been around J79 that is properly configured. That is what I do for a living. Just another thought about the J79, many of the units sold today have been demilled. Many current owners of the J79 may or may not have gotten he parts together to make a fully functional system. If you do not have the TO's and the knowledge of what you need. This older engine can be overwhelming as to how to put them together and for that matter even make them work. Granted there are mechanics out there that know as much or more than I do about the J79. Were are they and how come they are not the team working with me? Hell I do not know! What I can say Franklin is this. We installed the fully functional J79-7 into the engine bay this past weekend. We will make our runs and continue to work on the car a little at a time. When the car is as safe as possible we will go for the record. It does not matter how long it takes, we got the time. I just have to step back take a look, read up on and evaluate what other teams have done to see why they had problems. It is something that I keep reminding NAE about. Seven years of rebuilding the F-104 into a land speed jet car, all the time and effort. It would be a shame to go off half cocked and start making high speed runs. When the car was not ready, the teams you have mentioned earlier. Why is it that they had to go back to the drawing board? How come their names are not in the record books right now? I can not answer that part. It would appear that going out for the record right away is not the answer. Running the car as fast as you can in the quickest time and space is not the answer either. So who's method is best, I do not know. We are trying something that has not been tried as of yet. If we are successful then our idea was great. Either way it should be a great show. Once again Franklin you tossing stuff out that is old news. Why is it that you keep dodging the questions about your experience? Why is it you keep missing the ball on just what NAE is doing. I have that answer! WB -----Original Message----- From: Franklin Ratliff [mailto:fratliff@apexmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 8:43 AM To: ed@landspeed.com; keith@landspeed.com; bill@landspeed.com; fratliff@apexmail.com Cc: cc@kerosenebomb.com; wrenchski@aol.com; photorick@aol.com; bretkepner@prodigy.net; elmgeo@aol.com; rocketheads@peoplepc.com Subject: NAE not an 800 mph car Ed - Richard Noble's Thrust 2 weighed 8,000 lbs and was powered by a Rolls-Royce Avon turbojet rated at 16,500 lbs thrust. The car maxed out at 650 mph. I do not see how a car that weighs 5,000 lbs more is supposed to be 150 mph faster under the same conditions on only 2,000 lbs more thrust. http://www.landspeed.com/files/acceleration_estimates2.pdf Unfortunately, the drag coefficients calculated for the NAE are unrealistically low. If the decimal point were moved to the right one place the drag coefficients would be much more in the ballpark. Even land speed cars don't have drag coefficients where the first digit to the right of the decimal point is a zero. For example, the drag coefficient for the Summers brothers Goldenrod was around .11 to .15 while The Blue Flame according to wind tunnel tests done at Ohio State had a drag coefficient of .26 at Mach .8, .40 at Mach 9, .60 at Mach 1, and .69 at Mach 1.1. http://www.machinedesign.com/asp/viewSelectedArticle.asp?strArticleId=55920&srtSite=MDSitev The drag coefficient for Ohio State's "Buckeye Bullet", the first electric car to go 300 mph, is about .30 based on Ohio State's own wind tunnel tests. Why should an F-104 based car -- an aerodynamically much dirtier configuration compared to the Buckeye Bullet -- not have a subsonic drag coefficient at least that high? I don't know what the frontal area of an F-104 based land speed car is, but let's say for the sake of discussion it's 19 square feet (same as The Blue Flame). Using the The Blue Flame drag coefficients, aerodynamic drag would be 4,548 lbs at Mach .8 (600 mph), 8,856 lbs at Mach .9, 16,400 lbs at Mach 1, and 22,820 lbs at Mach 1.1 (825 mph). The only possible method I can see for providing NAE with enough thrust to be assured of breaking the 763 mph record is rocket boosting. The rocket system could be slung underneath the fuselage enclosed inside a ventral fairing. It's possible (but not certain) that the rocket system need not be something high tech. For example, a steam rocket system with a capacity of 200 gallons could sustain 5,000 lbs thrust for 10 seconds or 10,000 lbs thrust for 5 seconds. Sincerely, Franklin Ratliff I got this message form Franklin via private e-mail and thought I would share it with everyone on this forum. WB

Guest -> RE: F-104 car team not doing things in integrated way (9/13/2004 4:06:21 PM)
quote: If you know the exact figures give them up. We could not find any and Lockheed with not give them up. Even some of the best local engineers and local college programs are still scratching their heads trying to get us figures. Quote what you will about other vehicles, they still would have little to do with this project based solely on the different configuration. "Lockheed with not give them up." Well, to the best of my knowledge Lockheed has never built a land speed car. You guys had plenty to go by. You just weren't looking in the right places. For example, your so-called "different configuration" is the same as Craig Breedlove's original Spirit of America, the nonafterburning J-47 powered car. The performance of that car would have told you plenty about drag at speeds up 500 mph. The fact Breedlove's second car, the J-79 powered Spirit of America - Sonic I, couldn't clock more than 518 mph in dry thrust -- not even as fast as the first Spirit of America -- would have told you what kind of speeds you might expect with a J-79 car running in dry thrust.

Page: << < 2 3 [4] 5 6 > >>

0.0625