F-104 car team not doing things in integrated way

The JetWebb.com Forum

Forums Register Login My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription

Member List Search Calendars FAQ Contact Admin Log Out

F-104 car team not doing things in integrated way

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [JETWEBB.COM FORUM'S] >> Car & Drive Talk >> F-104 car team not doing things in integrated way

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Guest

F-104 car team not doing things in ...

So far on the North American Eagle I’ve seen some very expert machining and welding go into fabricating the wheels and axles and a lot of time and effort go into restoring the fuselage, but instead of seeing all this effort produce an integrated design that takes into account how everything relates to each other I’ve watched it all being done piecemeal. Building a strong rear axle assembly capable of supporting the car means they’ve moved the center of gravity backward by adding all that weight at the rear. Using a military afterburner means not only is the engine 500 hundred pounds heavier than a J-79 with a drag racing style burner but since that 500 pounds is all the way at the rear they’ve moved the center of gravity even farther backward. If they were to locate their main load bearing suspension mid-body (where the main gear wheel wells are) not only could their hydraulic active suspension lift the car without altering pitch since it would be acting under the center of gravity instead of behind it, but they'd be able to move the center of gravity forward because instead of just moving weight forward they'd be able to take weight off the back because the rear axle would just have to be strong enough to control the pitch not support the weight of the car.

Franklin Ratliff

Date 4/14/2004 10:01:01 AM

Guest

RE: F-104 car team not doing things... (in reply to Guest)

www.landspeed.com

Date 4/14/2004 11:01:17 AM

Guest

RE: F-104 car team not doing things... (in reply to Guest)

Frank, whats a drag racing afterburner?Most J-79's I've seen the afterburner is completeley integral, I quess one could always remove it though?

Date 4/14/2004 7:28:23 PM

Guest

RE: F-104 car team not doing things... (in reply to Guest)

A drag racing burner uses a fixed exhaust nozzle, not a variable iris.

Rent "Top Gun" with Tom Cruise for good video of military burners.

Date 4/15/2004 7:29:15 AM

Guest

RE: F-104 car team not doing things... (in reply to Guest)

A military style burner has to function over variations in altitude of tens of thousands of feet while being attached to an engine that spends most of its time being run in dry thrust not burner. The military style burner has a variable iris nozzle so that the engine can switch from dry thrust to burner and back while at the same time maintaining the optimum combustion pressure within the burner. A military style burner matches operation to altitude by keeping fuel flow constant and changing the size of the iris nozzle. Jet cars don't need to run in dry thrust (despite what Breedlove has tried) and are virtually always run in burner, so the engine only has to be set up to run well in burner. A drag racing burner works by keeping the nozzle area constant and varying the fuel flow. Fuel flow to a drag racing burner can be adjusted through a simple quarter turn ball valve allowing the driver if needed to throttle the burner on the fly (a trick Breedlove didn't know about when he crashed at Blackrock). Art Arfons ran his first J-79 car with a stock military burner and despite building two more J-79 cars never ran a military style burner again. His first J-79 car hit 258 mph in the quarter. His second J-79 car, the one now on display at the Petersen museum, hit 283 mph in the quarter.

Franklin

Date 4/15/2004 8:01:17 AM

Guest

RE: F-104 car team not doing things... (in reply to Guest)

It's interesting too see that most jet cars use a convergent profile on the final nozzle.

Date 4/16/2004 10:58:17 PM

Guest

RE: F-104 car team not doing things... (in reply to Guest)

People take my advice then don't give me the credit.

Subj: Suspension
Date: 4/12/2004 10:33:33 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: PROPSTERGUY
To: ed@landspeed.com, keith@landspeed.com
"At the same time, Ed, Jon & Bob examined and discussed one of the more significant tasks facing them; how to address the need for mid-body suspension. Ideas were shared and kicked around between them and pictures were taken of the main landing gear bays to use later for design purposes."

Ed - I hate to say I told you so but not only did I tell you guys five years ago when all you had was a derelict F-104 fuselage that you were going to need mid-body suspension but that the mid-body suspension needed to be your main load bearing suspension.
Sincerely, Franklin

Subj: Re: Suspension
Date: 4/12/2004 11:36:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Ed Shadle
To: PROPSTERGUY
Cc: Keith@landspeed.com

Frank, you didn't tell me anything I didn't already know. Jon, the webmaster,
sometimes writes about things without running them by Keith and me and
occasionally it comes across like the team is a bunch of high school kids trying to
figure out how the world works. I don't know how old you are, but I'm creeping
up on 63. Most of my team is in their 50's and 60's and the oldest is 84.
Most of us have "been there and done that." We're not a bunch of idiots. Most are
well educated and the rest of us have spent a lifetime learning about physics
through experimentation and experience. Most of us build, race, fly and
generally experience life at it's fullest. We have a team of intelligent, dedicated
members who know how to make it happen.
Sincerely, Ed Shadle
PS. What Jon was alluding to was figuring out the attachment points on the
frame of the 104, not the fact that we are installing a suspension amidships.

Subj: 13,000 lbs on two wheels
Date: 4/15/2004 9:32:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: PROPSTERGUY
To: Shadleed@cs.com
Cc:edrumheller@landspeed.com,stevew@landspeed.com, keith@landspeed.com

Ed - The two front wheels on ThrustSSC carried something like 13,000 lbs static weight, about as much as the weight of your entire car, and that was BEFORE aero loads were applied to them. So from a mechanical design viewpoint an axle and pair of wheels capable of supporting the car could certainly be fabricated and installed in the main gear wheel wells. The weight of the fuselage would then be resting on the area designed for that purpose. Your nose wheel and rear wheels could then literally be used only for keeping the nose and tail off the ground, and dedicated primarily to pitch control instead of supporting the car.
Sincerely, Franklin

Subj: Re: Suspension
Date: 4/19/2004 9:51:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: PROPSTERGUY
To: Ed Shadle
File: 170404q.jpg

In a message dated 4/12/2004 11:36:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Shadleed@cs.com writes:

> PS. What Jon was alluding to was figuring out the attachment points on the
> frame of the 104, not the fact that we are installing a
> suspension amidships.

Ed - This sure sounds (and looks) like the amidships suspension I was suggesting five years ago. "At the same time, Russell removed the main gear doors to make it easier for the modifications to the mid-section being planned by Ed. He is designing a wheeled hydraulic suspension system to be attached to the keel beam of the main gear section in order to mitigate any possible flex in the 40 ft. + span between axles which may occur during runs."
Sincerely, Franklin

Date 4/19/2004 9:49:31 AM

Guest

RE: F-104 car team not doing things... (in reply to Guest)

Franklin, get a life!!!!! These people know alot more about what they are doing than you or whatever theory you happen to be working on. Stick to your prop driven go cart!!

Date 4/19/2004 2:58:18 PM

Guest

RE: F-104 car team not doing things... (in reply to Guest)

Unlike these people, I'VE built AND driven a thrust-driven car.

Franklin

Date 4/19/2004 3:30:38 PM

Guest

RE: F-104 car team not doing things... (in reply to Guest)

In other words, their engine people know a lot about STOCK engines, their parachute guy knows a lot about drag chutes, their hydraulics people know a lot about hydraulics, and their machinist knows a lot about making wheels but none of them have ever built a jet car, let alone a land speed jet car.

Franklin

Date 4/19/2004 3:35:19 PM

Guest

RE: F-104 car team not doing things... (in reply to Guest)

And which one was that????

Date 4/19/2004 10:06:57 PM

Guest

RE: F-104 car team not doing things... (in reply to Guest)

Franklin
Have you ever worked on the J79? Have you ever studied that actual afterburner to find out what it does? I thought I would take some time and reply to your knowledge, limited as it maybe, about the J79. I have worked on this engine in the Air Force, overhauled dozens. I even static tested the -15 and -17 configurations and know the engine inside and out. The reason for nozzle control is the horsepower increase. Without the nozzle the egine developes 12,000 pounds of thrust, with nozzel control you get 17,000 pounds of thrust. The J79-11 when fully adjusted produces 15,500 at sea level, if the engine is run in over boost by 10% you get 17,000. Naturally engine life is reduced however, S&S turbines has a method to fix the J-79 and its short comings. Finely balanced compressor and turbine section, thermal coatings and smokeless burners coupled with better fuel nozzles give the engine more thermal efficiency and more horsepower. So I do not who informed you about the drag racing J79's when you find one let me know. Most of the drag racing engines are J85's the little version of the J79. Having been in the business for more than twenty years. You would thing I have learned something about turbojet engines. I would like to know what dry thrust means? Thrust to me means you burn wet fuel turn it into a working force, by adding wet fuel after the turbine section and ingniting it, you get more thrust. Be sides if you knew the J79 nozzle control you would find out that it is not closed during A/B. So when you do more research about the J79 let talk until then shut up about something you do not understand. By the way just to add to my extensive jet engine understanding, lets add in. P&W 4000, GE CF6, RB211, GE90, Trent 800, CFM-56 and F100, F117 and F101 military engines. I would guess that after working on these engines for Uncle Sam and Boeing for more than twenty years. Maybe some where along the line I would know how to work on jet engines. Now to add insult to injury I took the J79-11 and put it together from memory and it only took three staurday of voulenteer work to put it together. Then I used the original Air Force T.O. manuals to insure the eninge was in configuration. When we ran the eninge on the test cell it ran the first time and did need some tweeking. The engine had not been run in thrity years. Not bad for two old hunks of junk!

Bill Eckberg
J79 Engine Technician for NAE

Date 8/24/2004 9:50:12 PM

Guest

RE: F-104 car team not doing things... (in reply to Guest)

How Craig Breedlove and Gary Swenson got 22,000-24,000lbs of thrust out of a J-79 is something I'd like to know!

Date 8/25/2004 12:24:07 AM

Guest

RE: F-104 car team not doing things... (in reply to Guest)

Bill,

Not to be nasty or anything, but what you are saying would be similar to a Dodge line mechanic saying there is no way to get more than 450 HP from a Chrysler Hemi.

I'm sure Austin Coil has figured out ways to get more HP from a Hemi than Dodge ever did, and it may be possible Bob Motz has figured out a way to get more thrust from his j-79 powered semi than the military has been able to figure out.

Date 8/25/2004 10:59:14 AM

Guest

RE: F-104 car team not doing things... (in reply to Guest)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Guest

Franklin
Have you ever worked on the J79? Have you ever studied that actual afterburner to find out what it does? I thought I would take some time and reply to your knowledge, limited as it maybe, about the J79. I have worked on this engine in the Air Force, overhauled dozens. I even static tested the -15 and -17 configurations and know the engine inside and out. The reason for nozzle control is the horsepower increase. Without the nozzle the egine developes 12,000 pounds of thrust, with nozzel control you get 17,000 pounds of thrust. The J79-11 when fully adjusted produces 15,500 at sea level, if the engine is run in over boost by 10% you get 17,000. Naturally engine life is reduced however, S&S turbines has a method to fix the J-79 and its short comings. Finely balanced compressor and turbine section, thermal coatings and smokeless burners coupled with better fuel nozzles give the engine more thermal efficiency and more horsepower. So I do not who informed you about the drag racing J79's when you find one let me know. Most of the drag racing engines are J85's the little version of the J79. Having been in the business for more than twenty years. You would thing I have learned something about turbojet engines. I would like to know what dry thrust means? Thrust to me means you burn wet fuel turn it into a working force, by adding wet fuel after the turbine section and ingniting it, you get more thrust. Be sides if you knew the J79 nozzle control you would find out that it is not closed during A/B. So when you do more research about the J79 let talk until then shut up about something you do not understand. By the way just to add to my extensive jet engine understanding, lets add in. P&W 4000, GE CF6, RB211, GE90, Trent 800, CFM-56 and F100, F117 and F101 military engines. I would guess that after working on these engines for Uncle Sam and Boeing for more than twenty years. Maybe some where along the line I would know how to work on jet engines. Now to add insult to injury I took the J79-11 and put it together from memory and it only took three staurday of voulenteer work to put it together. Then I used the original Air Force T.O. manuals to insure the eninge was in configuration. When we ran the eninge on the test cell it ran the first time and did need some tweeking. The engine had not been run in thrity years. Not bad for two old hunks of junk!

Bill Eckberg
J79 Engine Technician for NAE

Ben - Unlike fighters, jet cars virtually ALWAYS run in burner and NEVER in dry thrust. The exhaust nozzle thus ONLY has to be set-up for operation in burner. In the transition from dry thrust to burner and back a military burner adjusts combustion pressure by closing down for dry thrust and opening up for burner. Jet cars don't need to do this. All they need to do is adjust burner combustion pressure to match altitude above sea level. And unlike fighters, jet cars don't operate over altitudes that change by tens of thousands of feet. The biggest change in altitude a jet car will see might be 3,000 or 4,000 feet. Burner combustion pressure in a jet car can thus easily be adjusted simply by adjusting the flow of fuel into the burner.

Date 8/27/2004 3:40:07 PM

Guest

RE: F-104 car team not doing things... (in reply to Guest)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Guest

Bill,

Not to be nasty or anything, but what you are saying would be similar to a Dodge line mechanic saying there is no way to get more than 450 HP from a Chrysler Hemi.

I'm sure Austin Coil has figured out ways to get more HP from a Hemi than Dodge ever did, and it may be possible Bob Motz has figured out a way to get more thrust from his j-79 powered semi than the military has been able to figure out.

well i guess i would be the dodge line mechanic since i work at general electric and have built and tested almost all of GE's milatary engines since 1971...(except the J79 which is built and tested in Ohio but i did work on F4's in the airforce for a few years)

A jet engine is not like a car engine where you can bore it out and make the parts larger to give you more horsepower.....there are only a few ways to make a jet engine give you more thrust, and both of those ways are gonna lower the life of the engine drasticly.....

to give a given jet engine more thrust you would have to A. thighten up the clearances in the compressor rotor..(which would be an expensive move) or B..just spin it faster, by adding more fuel and more fuel to the afterburner...engines are limited to compressor speed and thrust by T5 (temperature just aft of the turbine) that is the one limiting factor on extra thrust (that and the limit of the compressor rotor speed before it will let go)...

if you wanted to add more thrust then you could raise that T5 limit and that would give you more fuel to the engine and more thrust. it would also burn up your turbine and combustors more quickly but so doesnt a big bore car engine built to the max.. the other way would be just to add more fuel to the afterburner and lower the area of the nozzle..another move that would lower the life of the parts...Jet engines are not all that complicated and to say that it takes a brain to make them give more thrust is just not correct..you just have to know how long a turbine or compressor is gonna last for that 5 second run or the minute or tow on the salt flats....

.....we build and test our engines for thousands of hours, then pull them apart and examine them for wear and tear...we could always add more thrust but the engine has to be "flightworthy" for so many hours...
a Jet car does not have to worry about those things...if the engine lets go or the turbine fries then he just pulls over..a condition a pilot does not have the luxury of....

Date 9/3/2004 9:10:39 AM

Guest

RE: F-104 car team not doing things... (in reply to Guest)

In theory you are correct, But when you put strain on the hot end by overspeeding or overtemping, it will cost you alot of time to find the parts (only to miss race dates and appearance $ during this time period) and also the cost of the parts (which is also not cheap) and for what? We do not make any more $$ for going faster. I feel that its not worth the $ I lose to put extra strain on my car. This is a business, not a toy to take out and play whenever we feel like it...........

Date 9/3/2004 9:32:21 AM

Guest

RE: F-104 car team not doing things... (in reply to Guest)

But the topic of this post is for landspeed racing, where they really only need a few attempts. So to burning up parts is not a major player in their long run. They don't do contracted runs at a drag strip, but I would love to see Thrust 2 make a quarter mile pass.

Date 9/3/2004 9:42:46 AM

Guest

RE: F-104 car team not doing things... (in reply to Guest)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Guest

In theory you are correct, But when you put strain on the hot end by overspeeding or overtemping, it will cost you alot of time to find the parts (only to miss race dates and appearance $ during this time period) and also the cost of the parts (which is also not cheap) and for what? We do not make any more $$ for going faster. I feel that its not worth the $ I lose to put extra strain on my car. This is a business, not a toy to take out and play whenever we feel like it...........

I agree with you 110%, im not telling anyone to override the T5 set point on your engines........beleive me ive seen more engines let go than anyone in here.....thats what i do for a living, i wreck engines to see how long they last..... i was just responding to the post that it is wrong to say that General Electic or the person that made the first quote that because he just works on engines for 40 or so years, that he didnt know how to make the J79 get more thrust, like a dodge line mechanic..........its like anything, if you have the money and are willing to spend it, you can always go faster or get more out of an engine, its just that you dont have to be a brain surgen to make a jet engine go faster, just willing to add more fuel and heat.....I my self think a J85 or a J79 is fast enough just the way it is when it leaves our plant :-)

Date 9/3/2004 9:50:35 AM

Guest

RE: F-104 car team not doing things... (in reply to Guest)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Guest

quote:

ORIGINAL: Guest

In theory you are correct, But when you put strain on the hot end by overspeeding or overtemping, it will cost you alot of time to find the parts (only to miss race dates and appearance $ during this time period) and also the cost of the parts (which is also not cheap) and for what? We do not make any more $$ for going faster. I feel that its not worth the $ I lose to put extra strain on my car. This is a business, not a toy to take out and play whenever we feel like it...........

I agree with you 110%, im not telling anyone to override the T5 set point on your engines........beleive me ive seen more engines let go than anyone in here.....thats what i do for a living, i wreck engines to see how long they last..... i was just responding to the post that it is wrong to say that General Electic or the person that made the first quote that because he just works on engines for 40 or so years, that he didnt know how to make the J79 get more thrust, like a dodge line mechanic..........its like anything, if you have the money and are willing to spend it, you can always go faster or get more out of an engine, its just that you dont have to be a brain surgen to make a jet engine go faster, just willing to add more fuel and heat.....I my self think a J85 or a J79 is fast enough just the way it is when it leaves our plant :-)

dam, keep forgetting im not signed in and theres no edit thing....GSXRJACK

Date 9/3/2004 9:52:13 AM

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 > >>

All Forums >> [JETWEBB.COM FORUM'S] >> Car & Drive Talk >> F-104 car team not doing things in integrated way

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

0.172