Author Topic: A jet car concept yet to be tried  (Read 10585 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Ratliff

  • Guest
A jet car concept yet to be tried
« on: June 22, 2008, 04:01:55 PM »
A jet car concept yet to be tried is an in-line configuration with the engines positioned one behind the other. For example, it could be two J-85 engines, or a J-85 placed in front of a J-79. Two small turbojets like the J-85 or J-60 would make the most sense. The power of the car could be doubled without doubling the width of the car.

Below is a link to another approach to twin engine jets as proposed by Alex Tremulis.

http://www.landracing.com/forum/index.php/topic,4033.0.html

« Last Edit: June 22, 2008, 04:08:36 PM by Ratliff »

Offline Milwaukee Midget

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6663
    • Milwaukee Midget Racing
Re: A jet car concept yet to be tried
« Reply #1 on: June 22, 2008, 04:27:37 PM »
Interesting idea.  Where does the driver sit?

Is this your drawing?



« Last Edit: June 22, 2008, 04:35:44 PM by Milwaukee Midget »
"Problems are almost always a sign of progress."  Harold Bettes
Well, I guess we're making a LOT of progress . . .  :roll:

Ratliff

  • Guest
Re: A jet car concept yet to be tried
« Reply #2 on: June 22, 2008, 04:51:03 PM »
Interesting idea.  Is this your drawing?



In the drawing above, the driver sits in the middle under the inlet for the rear engine.

The idea is mine, but the drawing was made by my friend Don Baumea. Don added touches like the high mounted wing struts.

Don has also given some thought to ramjet cars and done some fascinating visual studies exploring how they might look.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2008, 04:52:35 PM by Ratliff »

Offline aircap

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 571
Re: A jet car concept yet to be tried
« Reply #3 on: June 23, 2008, 12:32:20 AM »
Why does one jet engine blowing into another jet engine sound like madness to me?
Can you post an instance where this has been tried in aircraft before and it worked?
"Act your age, not your shoe size". - Prince

Offline Milwaukee Midget

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6663
    • Milwaukee Midget Racing
Re: A jet car concept yet to be tried
« Reply #4 on: June 23, 2008, 12:55:07 AM »
Why does one jet engine blowing into another jet engine sound like madness to me?
Can you post an instance where this has been tried in aircraft before and it worked?

Maybe I'm not seeing the drawing clearly, but it appears as though the forward jet exits below the upper one, correct?  It would seem to me that to try to run a jet engine (or any other engine for that matter) in the enclosed, oxygen starved wake of a jet engine would fail, or at best, be inefficient to the point of being little help to propulsion.  Is there something I'm missing?
"Problems are almost always a sign of progress."  Harold Bettes
Well, I guess we're making a LOT of progress . . .  :roll:

Offline ol38y

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 686
  • When all else fails, gas it!
Re: A jet car concept yet to be tried
« Reply #5 on: June 23, 2008, 01:03:43 AM »
Why does one jet engine blowing into another jet engine sound like madness to me?
Can you post an instance where this has been tried in aircraft before and it worked?

Maybe I'm not seeing the drawing clearly, but it appears as though the forward jet exits below the upper one, correct?  It would seem to me that to try to run a jet engine (or any other engine for that matter) in the enclosed, oxygen starved wake of a jet engine would fail, or at best, be inefficient to the point of being little help to propulsion.  Is there something I'm missing?

Maybe that's why it's still a concept.  :-o
Larry Cason
Bakersfield,CA    It's a dry heat!

2010 BUB 1350 M-PG record
2012 Speedweek  1350 A-PG record 169.975
2014 El Mirage Dry Lake  1350 A-PG  172.651

Ratliff

  • Guest
Re: A jet car concept yet to be tried
« Reply #6 on: June 23, 2008, 06:53:01 AM »
Why does one jet engine blowing into another jet engine sound like madness to me?
Can you post an instance where this has been tried in aircraft before and it worked?

It would be madness if that's what the drawing showed. However, what the drawing shows is the forward engine exhausting through a Y-pipe down the sides of the car.

Ratliff

  • Guest
Re: A jet car concept yet to be tried
« Reply #7 on: June 23, 2008, 06:57:40 AM »
Why does one jet engine blowing into another jet engine sound like madness to me?
Can you post an instance where this has been tried in aircraft before and it worked?

Maybe I'm not seeing the drawing clearly, but it appears as though the forward jet exits below the upper one, correct?  It would seem to me that to try to run a jet engine (or any other engine for that matter) in the enclosed, oxygen starved wake of a jet engine would fail, or at best, be inefficient to the point of being little help to propulsion.  Is there something I'm missing?

That is correct. The exhaust outlets for the forward engine are located below the air inlet for the rear engine. There is no interaction between the engines.

Blue

  • Guest
Re: A jet car concept yet to be tried
« Reply #8 on: June 26, 2008, 05:35:31 PM »
The exhaust plume IS cross section, so nothing has been saved with this idea.

Ratliff

  • Guest
Re: A jet car concept yet to be tried
« Reply #9 on: June 26, 2008, 05:39:08 PM »
The exhaust plume IS cross section, so nothing has been saved with this idea.

The exhaust plume is much smaller in diameter than the engine itself. Anyone who has ever watched jet cars at night has seen this with their own eyes.

With in line engines, you also don't get the abrupt jump in cross-section resulting when the engines are mounted side by side, thus conforming to Whitcomb's area rule principle.

« Last Edit: June 26, 2008, 05:44:47 PM by Ratliff »

Ratliff

  • Guest
Re: A jet car concept yet to be tried
« Reply #10 on: June 27, 2008, 11:30:18 AM »
The exhaust plume IS cross section, so nothing has been saved with this idea.

Whitcomb Area Rule

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4219/Chapter5.html

"Several weeks later, a world renowned German aerodynamicist named Dr. Adolf Busemann, who had come to work at Langley after World War II, gave a technical symposium on transonic airflows. In a vivid analogy, Busemann described the stream tubes of air flowing over an aircraft at transonic speeds as pipes, meaning that their diameter remained constant. At subsonic speeds, by comparison, the stream tubes of air flowing over a surface would change shape, become narrower as their speed increased. This phenomenon was the converse, in a sense, of a well-known aerodynamic principle called Bernoulli's theorem, which stated that as the area of an airflow was made narrower, the speed of the air would increase. This principle was behind the design of venturis,9 as well as the configuration of Langley's wind tunnels, which were "necked down" in the test sections to generate higher speeds.10

But at the speed of sound, Busemarm explained, Bernoulli's theorem did not apply. The size of the stream tubes remained constant. In working with this kind of flow, therefore, the Langley engineers had to look at themselves as "pipefitters." Busemann's pipefitting metaphor caught the attention of Whitcomb, who was in the symposium audience. Soon after that Whitcomb was, quite literally, sitting with his feet up on his desk one day, contemplating the unusual shock waves he had encountered in the transonic wind tunnel. He thought of Busemann's analogy of pipes flowing over a wing-body shape and suddenly, as he described it later, a light went on.

The shock waves were larger than anticipated, he realized, because the stream tubes did not get narrower or change shape, meaning that any local increase in area or drag would affect the entire configuration in all directions, and for a greater distance. More importantly, that meant that in trying to reduce the drag, he could not look at the wing and fuselage as separate entities. He had to look at the entire cross-sectional area of the design and try to keep it as smooth a curve as possible as it increased and decreased around the fuselage, wing and tail. In an instant of clarity and inspiration, he had discovered the area rule."

Blue

  • Guest
Re: A jet car concept yet to be tried
« Reply #11 on: June 28, 2008, 09:22:45 PM »
FR, do you EVER do any actual work or just regurgitate 50 year old texts? :?

BTW, Amax varies with Mach cone angle per arcsin(1/mach), or is that not covered before 1960?

For all non-aerodynamicists on the board, the example provided is stuck at one Mach number.  Even the most basic understanding of linear wave drag goes way beyond this.

For anyone who is truly interested, supersonic wave drag in flat plate (piece of plywood) equivalent (D/q) is:

(EWD)*(9pi/2)*(Amax/length)squared

A max is defined as maximum cross sectional area minus inlet capture area (for jet engines, rockets have no inlet capture).  IOW, the air that the engine eats doesn't count against displacement drag.  A max is increased for the increased displacement of the exhaust plume vs. the capture area.  So "stacking" engines in line is a dumb idea.

"EWD" is a measure of how well a given cross sectional area distribution matches a parabola (Sear-Haack distribution).  Blue Flame was ~1.9, Thrust SSC ~3, Sonic Arrow ~2.2, Fossett LSR ~2.  A well designed LSR should be down around 1.2-1.4 for the design Mach number.

All of this is in any textbook on wave drag written in the last 20 years.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2008, 10:24:39 AM by Blue »

Ratliff

  • Guest
Re: A jet car concept yet to be tried
« Reply #12 on: June 28, 2008, 10:14:26 PM »
FR, do you EVER do any actual work or just regurgitate 50 year old texts? :?

BTW, Amax varies with Mach cone angle per arcsin(1/mach), or is that not covered before 1960?

For all non-aerodynamicists on the board, the example provided is stuck at one Mach number.  Even the most basic understanding of linear wave drag goes way beyond this.

For anyone who is truly interested, supersonic wave drag in flat plate equivalent (D/q) is:

(EWD)*9pi/2(Amax/length)squared

A max is defined as maximum cross sectional area minus inlet capture area (for jet engines, rockets have no inlet capture).  IOW, the air that the engine eats doesn't count against displacement drag.  A max is increased for the increased displacement of the exhaust plume vs. the capture area.  So "stacking" engines in line is a dumb idea.

"EWD" is a measure of how well a given cross sectional area distribution matches a parabola (Sear-Haack distribution).  Blue Flame was ~1.9, Thrust SSC ~3, Sonic Arrow ~2.2, Fossett LSR ~2.  A well designed LSR should be down around 1.2-1.4 for the design Mach number.

All of this is in any textbook on wave drag written in the last 20 years.

Until the LSR is raised substantially, we're still only discussing transonic conditions.

The current LSR was certified as only Mach 1.02.

Breaking it only requires an increase of 7.63 mph, still well within the transonic regime and still well within the conditions where Whitcomb area ruling is beneficial.


« Last Edit: June 28, 2008, 10:19:16 PM by Ratliff »

Offline interested bystander

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 997
Re: A jet car concept yet to be tried
« Reply #13 on: June 28, 2008, 10:50:43 PM »
FFRANKLIN, have you noticed,at least on this GREAT, INFORMATIVE, website that there is not a lot of land speed jet car activity?  Theres not a lot of individuals,as I aluded to in another post, clamoring to be enlightend about jetcar land speed racing machines! Unless, that is, they are history buffs and I'm sure that's OK.

Most of that stuff went out with the Breedlove/Arfons et al battles from the 60s. And most important, today it probably falls in to the categories who cares and I don't give a doo-doo.

With the tragic loss of Mr Fsset, I think that ultimate speed record racing has died.

You are also wasting an obvious accomplished aerodynamicist time and fingertips deflating your ancient concepts.

You have a lot of savvy that MAY apply today, but check out what the direction the general discussions go toward and THEN contribute your extensive knowledge.

You ARE driving a lot of viewers/contributers away.
5 mph in pit area (clothed)

Ratliff

  • Guest
Re: A jet car concept yet to be tried
« Reply #14 on: June 28, 2008, 11:00:40 PM »
In the summer of 1983 I did a series of conceptual drawings, based around twin forward-mounted engines and the idea there might be a fuselage shape where the strong shockwave formations were on the sides and top of the car rather than underneath it. At the suggestion of my friend Arvil Porter, who had studied the design of the Bell rocket backback, for the series of drawings done in September 1983 I canted the engines outward so that they could stabilize the car in the horizontal plane the same way the canted nozzles on the Bell backpack stabilized it in the vertical plane.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2008, 11:08:09 PM by Ratliff »