A streamliner configuration no one has tried

[Loose Goose-Terry#1]

  Yes, I miss reading Jack's and Kent's posts. As one who has a LOT to learn, they both really do need to come back and impart their wisdom to us less wise...

Terry

[jl222]

     One reason Rollsroyce aero engines did not use turbos was because they did not get the thrust from the exhaust that they recieved from their 2 stage centrifugal superchargers. I have read 200 thrust horsepower.
  We believe we get thrust and downforce from our zoomies on the 222 car.
  Also the mustangs manipulated a net thrust over drag on their cooling system

          JL222.


         

[Ratliff]

     One reason Rollsroyce aero engines did not use turbos was because they did not get the thrust from the exhaust that they recieved from their 2 stage centrifugal superchargers. I have read 200 thrust horsepower.
  We believe we get thrust and downforce from our zoomies on the 222 car.
  Also the mustangs manipulated a net thrust over drag on their cooling system

          JL222.


         

Goldenrod and Challenger had about the same cubic inches as a Rolls-Royce Merlin, but were pumping out more gas per second since their engines were turning higher rpm.

[Malcolm UK]

If someone wants to try something new 'outside the box' then that is welcome but the outcome should not be inflicted on governing bodies whose wording is clear and precise.

A 'diamond' 4 wheel configuration of Formula 1 car was "trialled" in a virtual world - did not show any improvement and therfore was never entered into that type of event.  There was an article in Race Car Engineering this year about it.

I am sure that there is a definition of 'front' somewhere in the cyber world.  Of course everything can be ahead of the finalwheel but you have to define a direction to make a decision.  The SCTA got it right by defining 'two' front steered wheels.

The Scmidt jet/wheeldriven car was a paper design and scale model exercise.  It was not constructed and as far as I know was never put in front of an FIA technical person for 'approval'.  If it had been built there would have been some lengthy discussions in Paris .......... and I would have expected a shake of the head. 

Internal combustion engines have to exhaust burnt/unburnt gases from the combustion process.  Who in their right minds would point the outlet forward?  We can all point the exhaust as we wish and so there can be no 'crying foul' if a designer of the whole vehicle package makes use of the flow generated.  ("If in doubt please will everyone copy Goldenrod!")

I for one am pleased that the technical section of this forum can explore areas other than SCTA automobiles.

Malcolm UK

 

[Stainless1]

If someone wants to try something new 'outside the box' then that is welcome but the outcome should not be inflicted on governing bodies whose wording is clear and precise.

Hey Dan, here is a quote you may want to put in your list of good answers to classification questions.... 

I think Malcolm may be a pond away but understands how it works over here. 

[dwarner]

Stainless,

You are right about Malcom. It took some training but, I believe the Grasshopper is ready.

DW

[Ratliff]

If someone wants to try something new 'outside the box' then that is welcome but the outcome should not be inflicted on governing bodies whose wording is clear and precise.

A 'diamond' 4 wheel configuration of Formula 1 car was "trialled" in a virtual world - did not show any improvement and therfore was never entered into that type of event.  There was an article in Race Car Engineering this year about it.

I am sure that there is a definition of 'front' somewhere in the cyber world.  Of course everything can be ahead of the finalwheel but you have to define a direction to make a decision.  The SCTA got it right by defining 'two' front steered wheels.

The Scmidt jet/wheeldriven car was a paper design and scale model exercise.  It was not constructed and as far as I know was never put in front of an FIA technical person for 'approval'.  If it had been built there would have been some lengthy discussions in Paris .......... and I would have expected a shake of the head. 

Internal combustion engines have to exhaust burnt/unburnt gases from the combustion process.  Who in their right minds would point the outlet forward?  We can all point the exhaust as we wish and so there can be no 'crying foul' if a designer of the whole vehicle package makes use of the flow generated.  ("If in doubt please will everyone copy Goldenrod!")

I for one am pleased that the technical section of this forum can explore areas other than SCTA automobiles.

Malcolm UK

 

I wonder how many of those French aristocrats running the FIA back in 1960 ever got within 3,000 miles of a jet car when they were dictating what qualified as an "automobile"?

To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, sanctioning bodies are there to serve the racer. When a sanctioning body believes racers are there to serve them, then to the extent of the difference that is not my idea of a sanctioning body.

Schmid's land speed car was not intended as a styling exercise. After Schmid designed his land speed car, negotiations with Pininfarina to build it collapsed when Pininfarina refused to identify Schmid as a Porsche engineer.

Back in 1990, Steen and Herbert built an 8,000 to 10,000 pound streamliner with the exhaust pointed straight up.

[Malcolm UK]

Hey Dan are you saying that I might be the 'new enlightened one' ?

Another very good reason that Schmod did not get to build his 'automobile' was I heard that Britain would not release a RR Orpheus engine to him.

The FIA did not instigate a thrust powered class until 1964 when it recognised Tom Green in the Walt Arfons Wingfoot Express as the first to set the speed mark and 'The Outright World Record'.

Malcolm UK

[Richard Thomason]

With Steen's car having the exhaust pointing straight up, it was right in the driver's (first Don Vesco and then Roy's son Clayton) vision. After the first few tries, they made a lot of changes to make it more driver friendly.

[Ratliff]

Hey Dan are you saying that I might be the 'new enlightened one' ?

Another very good reason that Schmod did not get to build his 'automobile' was I heard that Britain would not release a RR Orpheus engine to him.

The FIA did not instigate a thrust powered class until 1964 when it recognised Tom Green in the Walt Arfons Wingfoot Express as the first to set the speed mark and 'The Outright World Record'.

Malcolm UK

With a weight of 800 lbs and a dry thrust of 5,000 lbs, the Orpheus was a nice motor.

Schmid would have had the same thrust as Breedlove's Spirit of America three wheeler but in a car with half the weight.

[Blue]

     One reason Rollsroyce aero engines did not use turbos was because they did not get the thrust from the exhaust that they recieved from their 2 stage centrifugal superchargers. I have read 200 thrust horsepower.
  We believe we get thrust and downforce from our zoomies on the 222 car.
  Also the mustangs manipulated a net thrust over drag on their cooling system

Just a note from the aero world:  These were two myths that have perpetuated to this day. Lots of very smart people still believe this even though the math goes the other way:

First, the exhaust during blow down of each cylinder does create net thrust, yet this is only 30% of the duty cycle (60 degrees of crank rotation), and the rest of the time each exhaust stack creates more drag than thrust.    For 480 of 720 degrees of crank rotation, each pipe is dead and creates nothing but separation drag.  The net effect is that the exposed, individual stacks (zoomies) make more drag than an equivalent collector exhaust.

Second, the radiator installation on the P-51 cannot make net trust until the exit temperature exceeds 185C!  This is awfully hot.  An engineer named Merideth is credited for this "thrust", but he was the first to say that the thrust at normal and military emergency power setting was a myth.  It is also a myth at Reno power levels.

[Ratliff]

     One reason Rollsroyce aero engines did not use turbos was because they did not get the thrust from the exhaust that they recieved from their 2 stage centrifugal superchargers. I have read 200 thrust horsepower.
  We believe we get thrust and downforce from our zoomies on the 222 car.
  Also the mustangs manipulated a net thrust over drag on their cooling system

Just a note from the aero world:  These were two myths that have perpetuated to this day. Lots of very smart people still believe this even though the math goes the other way:

First, the exhaust during blow down of each cylinder does create net thrust, yet this is only 30% of the duty cycle (60 degrees of crank rotation), and the rest of the time each exhaust stack creates more drag than thrust.    For 480 of 720 degrees of crank rotation, each pipe is dead and creates nothing but separation drag.  The net effect is that the exposed, individual stacks (zoomies) make more drag than an equivalent collector exhaust.

Second, the radiator installation on the P-51 cannot make net trust until the exit temperature exceeds 185C!  This is awfully hot.  An engineer named Merideth is credited for this "thrust", but he was the first to say that the thrust at normal and military emergency power setting was a myth.  It is also a myth at Reno power levels.

Here is how the exhaust headers were done on Goldenrod.

[Ratliff]

This is the form in which Goldenrod, on the ninth and last timed run, clocked 425 mph one-way through the mile. The Chrysler engineers had not believed the small aerospace scoops could flow enough air to feed the engines.

[Dynoroom]

Here is a shot of the air scoop they used to set the record with. The car did indeed go faster with the other scoops.



And here is a shot of the exhaust before it was repainted and installed back in the car during it's restoration.



As far as meaningful "thurst" from the exhaust I just wonder what the engine speed would need to be for the Goldenrod, Challenger, or even the Turbineator to move in neutral......

Now back on topic, that's what we like about LSR no 2 ideas are the same.

Oh ya, I can get more than 1 picture in my post.......