Landracing Forum
Tech Information => Technical Discussion => Topic started by: Ratliff on May 27, 2008, 10:03:40 AM
-
You have two wheels side by side in the middle, a single front wheel, and a single rear wheel with the middle wheels being driven. The front and rear wheels could be offset so that they're not on the centerline. This configuration would allow much cleaner aerodynamics on the tail of the body. By balancing the car so that all of the weight is on the middle wheels, with the front and rear wheels just holding the ends of the car off the ground, the car would have a much higher percentage of its weight on the driven wheels than can be attained with a conventional configuration.
-
Why don't you build it?
-
which wheel will steer willie buchta
-
Steering would be a problem. The rear wheel would drag side to side if steered from the front. If the front and rear wheel both steered the thing would be wildly unstable if weight was transfer and became a primarily rear steer vehicle. I would say that it could be done, I however would not volunteer to pilot it.
-
Interesting layout . If the rear was longer than the front it could be aerodynamically stable . If the middle and front wheels steered it could be mechanicly stable .
John
-
which wheel will steer willie buchta
I'd stick with the front wheel.
-
Steering would be a problem. The rear wheel would drag side to side if steered from the front. If the front and rear wheel both steered the thing would be wildly unstable if weight was transfer and became a primarily rear steer vehicle. I would say that it could be done, I however would not volunteer to pilot it.
Don't forget the rear wheel would hardly be carrying any weight since it would be there for the sole purpose of keeping the tail from dragging on the ground.
-
Interesting layout . If the rear was longer than the front it could be aerodynamically stable . If the middle and front wheels steered it could be mechanicly stable .
John
With the right weight bias that would be doable.
-
You have two wheels side by side in the middle, a single front wheel, and a single rear wheel with the middle wheels being driven. The front and rear wheels could be offset so that they're not on the centerline. This configuration would allow much cleaner aerodynamics on the tail of the body. By balancing the car so that all of the weight is on the middle wheels, with the front and rear wheels just holding the ends of the car off the ground, the car would have a much higher percentage of its weight on the driven wheels than can be attained with a conventional configuration.
I'm working on an electric motorcycle streamliner (we hope to put torch to steel this year) and toyed with going after the class 1 electric car streamliner since it seemed like a relatively easy add on, basically build two mirror image sidecars. We could not make the weight based on best estimates, so gave up on the idea. That said, it seemed like it would have been easier for us to design a bolt on front and rear and reuse the driver capsule.
I forget the the issues with Jim Bede's Pulse/Litestar design, but remember their being significant handling issues. Would you avoid these issues with your design?
Since front wheel drive would be allowed for a four wheel streamliner, what does this gain you that a design like the Pollywog wouldn't also give you?
-
You have two wheels side by side in the middle, a single front wheel, and a single rear wheel with the middle wheels being driven. The front and rear wheels could be offset so that they're not on the centerline. This configuration would allow much cleaner aerodynamics on the tail of the body. By balancing the car so that all of the weight is on the middle wheels, with the front and rear wheels just holding the ends of the car off the ground, the car would have a much higher percentage of its weight on the driven wheels than can be attained with a conventional configuration.
I'm working on an electric motorcycle streamliner (we hope to put torch to steel this year) and toyed with going after the class 1 electric car streamliner since it seemed like a relatively easy add on, basically build two mirror image sidecars. We could not make the weight based on best estimates, so gave up on the idea. That said, it seemed like it would have been easier for us to design a bolt on front and rear and reuse the driver capsule.
I forget the the issues with Jim Bede's Pulse/Litestar design, but remember their being significant handling issues. Would you avoid these issues with your design?
Since front wheel drive would be allowed for a four wheel streamliner, what does this gain you that a design like the Pollywog wouldn't also give you?
I would stay away from rear wheel steering.
It's possible that a front wheel drive car with an engine located forward of the front suspension might be another configuration where virtually all of the car's weight is balanced on the driven wheels.
The question then becomes how much aero drag does that generate compared to a streamliner with the wheels laid out in the diamond configuration?
-
:-D Hi out there in LSR Land! If I understand the concept correctly, 2 wheels side-by-side in the middle, a third wheel up front, and a fourth wheel in the rear...it would be neither a car nor a motorcycle. By definition, it would be putting down three tracks on the salt and that would make it a trike with a "training wheel". :-o Right, or am I missing something? :roll:
Tightwad Terry
-
:-D Hi out there in LSR Land! If I understand the concept correctly, 2 wheels side-by-side in the middle, a third wheel up front, and a fourth wheel in the rear...it would be neither a car nor a motorcycle. By definition, it would be putting down three tracks on the salt and that would make it a trike with a "training wheel". :-o Right, or am I missing something? :roll:
Tightwad Terry
Yes, you're missing the fact the front and rear wheels can be offset from the centerline so that they're not aligned, thus still meeting the definition of an automobile.
-
Yes, you're missing the fact the front and rear wheels can be offset from the centerline so that they're not aligned, thus still meeting the definition of an automobile.
Rat, did you miss the steering by 2 front wheels part (I know exactly where that rule came from :roll: ). What you have built is a time only streamliner for scta, maybe the FIA will let you run.... :|
-
Don Vesco set the motorcycle record with a streamliner called the Silver Bird. It later became the Lighting Bolt, and then an Offenhauser engine was put in it and made into a car streamliner.
The Sky Tracker was the first attempt from Don Vesco to go for the car record.
It had five wheels, one in the front, a twin in the rear and two small covered once on short outriggers left and right of the streamliner, very close to center.
(http://www.landracing.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3220.0;attach=2948;image)
It didn't work.
-
Dean, nice picture, :|
I think Don was stuck in time only the first year,
Also think the slowing down not the speeding up may have caused the problem in the picture.
Rick, got any inside info here?
-
Um . . . Ah . . . Yes Mr. Stainless, I did poach the picture from your older post. :evil:
-
Yes, you're missing the fact the front and rear wheels can be offset from the centerline so that they're not aligned, thus still meeting the definition of an automobile.
Rat, did you miss the steering by 2 front wheels part (I know exactly where that rule came from :roll: ). What you have built is a time only streamliner for scta, maybe the FIA will let you run.... :|
Make the rear wheel steerable too, but lock it out during the run so that only the front wheel actually does the steering.
Or do as John Burk suggested and bias the weight toward the front so that the drive wheels can be set far enough forward to also be used for steering.
Rulebooks are a suggestion, not a guide for designing.
-
Where does the propeller go? :lol: Wayno
-
"Rulebooks are a suggestion, not a guide for designing."
Correct, and suggestion 4.D suggests that the design be done so that at least two front wheels do the steering. But, you don't race with us so it does not matter in your world. Don't forget to post into the Introduction thread.
DW
-
You have two wheels side by side in the middle, a single front wheel, and a single rear wheel with the middle wheels being driven. The front and rear wheels could be offset so that they're not on the centerline. This configuration would allow much cleaner aerodynamics on the tail of the body. By balancing the car so that all of the weight is on the middle wheels, with the front and rear wheels just holding the ends of the car off the ground, the car would have a much higher percentage of its weight on the driven wheels than can be attained with a conventional configuration.
A lot depends on the class you are considering. The size of the engine and all of the things that stick out from it determine the smallest cross section. If you are talking a blown big block then you have all the room in the world to put two wheels in the back. Cleaner aerodynamics on the tail is more a function of length and there is no limit on length.
The available tires for high speed dictate the size of the tires used. Putting drive wheels in the middle means that you have to have have body, tires, drive, suspension, frame, and driver all in the same place, and that's a pretty wide structure.
Ron Main's Ecofire - 325 mph in a pretty small package.
(http://www.flatfire.com/recordday5.jpg)
-
"Rulebooks are a suggestion, not a guide for designing."
Correct, and suggestion 4.D suggests that the design be done so that at least two front wheels do the steering. But, you don't race with us so it does not matter in your world. Don't forget to post into the Introduction thread.
DW
The rulebook also doesn't have a definition for "front." Is "front" all the way at the leading edge? Or is "front" just some point forward of the mid point of the vehicle?
-
You have two wheels side by side in the middle, a single front wheel, and a single rear wheel with the middle wheels being driven. The front and rear wheels could be offset so that they're not on the centerline. This configuration would allow much cleaner aerodynamics on the tail of the body. By balancing the car so that all of the weight is on the middle wheels, with the front and rear wheels just holding the ends of the car off the ground, the car would have a much higher percentage of its weight on the driven wheels than can be attained with a conventional configuration.
A lot depends on the class you are considering. The size of the engine and all of the things that stick out from it determine the smallest cross section. If you are talking a blown big block then you have all the room in the world to put two wheels in the back. Cleaner aerodynamics on the tail is more a function of length and there is no limit on length.
The available tires for high speed dictate the size of the tires used. Putting drive wheels in the middle means that you have to have have body, tires, drive, suspension, frame, and driver all in the same place, and that's a pretty wide structure.
Ron Main's Ecofire - 325 mph in a pretty small package.
(http://www.flatfire.com/recordday5.jpg)
When you look at Ron Main's liner, the rear end aerodynamics would be cleaned up A TON if the drive wheels were at the mid point of the car not the back.
-
"Rulebooks are a suggestion, not a guide for designing."
Correct, and suggestion 4.D suggests that the design be done so that at least two front wheels do the steering. But, you don't race with us so it does not matter in your world. Don't forget to post into the Introduction thread.
DW
The SCTA and FIA definitions of an "automobile" don't say that in addition to the two driven wheels you can't also have a track.
Since the SCTA and FIA definitions of an "automobile" also don't say what percentage of power has to be transmitted through the wheels, Leopold Schmid's concept of setting an "automobile" record with a jet car that uses a paddlewheel in the exhaust stream to drive the rear wheels through spur gears would be just as valid today as it was 48 years ago.
A car with an engine that drove both the wheels and a propeller would also meet the SCTA/FIA definition of an "automobile."
If someone were to build a streamliner with a nonairbreathing gas turbine it would be a simple matter to also feed propellant to a rocket motor in the tail. If the car launched on just the rocket motor then after accelerating for a few seconds switched to pure wheel drive, how would it be classified?
Are there any practical efficient ways of going faster with an unconventional automobile that I missed?
-
you might want to read page 15 of the s c t a rulebook willie
-
you might want to read page 15 of the s c t a rulebook willie
The SCTA rulebook says they only sanction automobiles. All the different concepts I just described meet the definition of an automobile.
Goldenrod and Challenger 1 weren't purely wheel-driven either. Their headers were configured to recover residual thrust from the exhaust.
-
you didnt read page 15 of the rule book willie in casse you dont have one
2.A ENGINES any internal combustine engine using either a two stroke or four stroke otto cycle or diesel may run in any category --------------------------------------------reaction propulsions engines are prohibited.
you can run pretty much anything you want at an s c t a event if it will pass tech but if it wont fit into a class you will have to run for time only no record
-
If a person was to build under FRs design there is no reason why you could not have the required 2 wheels up front for steering (maybe 2 thin wheels very close together) to comply with the steering requirement and still maintain the design idea.
However.....I am sure that if there was the aft wheel (unless it was a swivel caster or other method of compliance) that steering from the front wheel and pivoting on the middle drive wheels would cause the rear wheel to drag side to side in the salt no matter how it was balanced. THis can be shown by holding a pencil in the middle and moving the point side to side, the eraser is how the rear wheel would move, and even if steering was kept at a minimum any inconsistency in the salt during a turn or a hard turn would cause a the rear to drag OR the front wheels to push.If there is not a significant amount of weight on the rear wheel to cause any issues with the lateral movement in the rear....why have it at all.
-
you didnt read page 15 of the rule book willie in casse you dont have one
2.A ENGINES any internal combustine engine using either a two stroke or four stroke otto cycle or diesel may run in any category --------------------------------------------reaction propulsions engines are prohibited.
you can run pretty much anything you want at an s c t a event if it will pass tech but if it wont fit into a class you will have to run for time only no record
if you're going to ban reaction propulsion then you also have to ban header configurations like the ones on Goldenrod and Challenger 1.
The SCTA has classes for turbine cars. The rulebook doesn't say they have to be airbreathers nor does it say there has to be a direct mechanical connection between the gas generator and the power turbine. Just as Leopold Schmid proposed placing a paddlewheel in the exhaust stream of a jet engine, a paddlewheel could also be placed in the exhaust stream of a rocket engine.
Aside from that, there are no rules prohibiting the installation of propellers on piston engine or turbine wheel driven cars since propellers are not a form of reaction propulsion.
"Reaction propulsion is generally defined as the propulsion of a craft produced by the forward directed forces of a reaction resulting from the rearward discharge from the craft a high-speed stream of matter, most frequently fluid. Jet propulsion and rocket propulsion are included in the definition of reaction propulsion."
"Noun 1. reaction propulsion - propulsion that results from the ejection at high velocity of a mass of gas to which the vehicle reacts with an equal and opposite momentum
jet propulsion - propulsion by means of the discharge of a jet of fluid toward the rear
propulsion - a propelling force
rocket propulsion - reaction propulsion using stored oxygen for combustion; used where there is insufficient atmospheric oxygen"
"reaction engine - WordNet (r) 2.1 (2005) :
reaction engine
n 1: a jet or rocket engine based on a form of aerodynamic
propulsion in which the vehicle emits a high-speed stream
[syn: reaction-propulsion engine, reaction engine]"
"reaction propulsion
noun
propulsion that results from the ejection at high velocity of a mass of gas to which the vehicle reacts with an equal and opposite momentum
Source: WordNet (r) 2.0"
"Noun: reaction propulsion
Propulsion that results from the ejection at high velocity of a mass of gas to which the vehicle reacts with an equal and opposite momentum
Derived forms: reaction propulsions"
-
i havent banned anything--me thinks you should buy and read a rule book just go to the website www.scta-bni.org and you can order one willie
-
i havent banned anything--me thinks you should buy and read a rule book just go to the website www.scta-bni.org and you can order one willie
You as in the rhetorical "you."
-
Brian,
That didn't long.
DW
-
Brian,
That didn't long.
DW
I'll wager $20.00 he'll be banned by June 6th :-D :evil:
-
Mr. Ratliff:
Please -- settle down a bit. While we encourage one and all to post on this forum, your dictum that we'll have to ban this vehicle or that based on some point of design -- is fine, within reason -- but should be directed at those who could possibly enact a ban. I hope you'd agree that the propulsion added by the exhaust is relatively small (compared to that from the driven wheels). If not they vehicles would fall under the definition of thrust-powered vehicles and would already be banned, wouldn't they?
I look forward to seeing more of your posts, but sure do hope they are a little more tactful when suggesting that the sanctioning organizations do some particular thing. Ideas and discussions are fine -- dictums are more than we need here. Thanks.
-
Mr. Ratliff:
Please -- settle down a bit. While we encourage one and all to post on this forum, your dictum that we'll have to ban this vehicle or that based on some point of design -- is fine, within reason -- but should be directed at those who could possibly enact a ban. I hope you'd agree that the propulsion added by the exhaust is relatively small (compared to that from the driven wheels). If not they vehicles would fall under the definition of thrust-powered vehicles and would already be banned, wouldn't they?
I look forward to seeing more of your posts, but sure do hope they are a little more tactful when suggesting that the sanctioning organizations do some particular thing. Ideas and discussions are fine -- dictums are more than we need here. Thanks.
Thanks, Slim.
Goldenrod and Challenger were built over forty years ago. I know of a new team that has studied how the headers on Goldenrod were configured, but otherwise the idea that residual thrust can be recovered from engine exhaust seems to have been largely ignored or forgotten in land speed racing. However, it is something that Top Fuel and Funny Car teams understand well.
-
I was talking to one of the guys on the crew of the Clark-Smith-Hall-Leggitt lakester at WOS last year and he was saying how their headers were designed to aid in streamlining, getting the air to flow over the back wheels, and I think he said that they would provide some thrust. Not sure about the thrust part.
-
Mr. Ratliff:
Please -- settle down a bit. While we encourage one and all to post on this forum, your dictum that we'll have to ban this vehicle or that based on some point of design -- is fine, within reason -- but should be directed at those who could possibly enact a ban. I hope you'd agree that the propulsion added by the exhaust is relatively small (compared to that from the driven wheels). If not they vehicles would fall under the definition of thrust-powered vehicles and would already be banned, wouldn't they?
I look forward to seeing more of your posts, but sure do hope they are a little more tactful when suggesting that the sanctioning organizations do some particular thing. Ideas and discussions are fine -- dictums are more than we need here. Thanks.
Slim and others:
I and others have found Ratliff's postings and drivel too much to take and from now on I and others only see the following when he responds "This user is currently ignored" to a post so we do not waste time either opening or viewing something we care nothing about.
It is the little box under your name on the far left hand side, if anyone feels it necessary to "ignore" my posts, my feelings will not be hurt. 8-)
John Noonan
-
John, I new you were my hero!
I forgot about the ignore button. "FR" certainly deserves it. Aliens and space ships and Franklin, Oh My!
I miss Jack D and Kent. Any chance they will be back under the new management?
-
I've been doing as John suggested for the last several days...Mikey likes the Ignore Button!
I also agree with Dean's last sentence.
Mike
-
I've been doing as John suggested for the last several days...Mikey likes the Ignore Button!
I also agree with Dean's last sentence.
Mike
I spoke with Kent today about posting here, he stated that he likes it here however it got to be too time consuming..I will see if I can get him back on.
Regarding Jack, I do not think that he is not banned, I think he can post if he wants to.
J
-
jack and kent come back we can all learn from you guys willie buchta
-
Willie,
You only have 1 person "ignoring you".. :mrgreen:
Most likely Sheri after you "dumped" her.. :-P
-
im an opinionated asshole and i cant say that i blame whoever it is willie buchta
-
I see this thread has run it's course... But... I tried this configuration when I was a kid. Welded 2 bicycles together, but only had 1 wheel driven. The front and back steering wheels were linked with a tube and a "homebrew" Heim joint on each end. It went in a straight line just fine... when I went to turn the front wheel it plowed, and the back wheel skidded. I suppose if the wheels were "close coupled" it wouldn't be much of a problem, but if you stretch the wheelbase out you're going to have problems. If you doubt my observations... build a model and check it out for your self :-D. I ended up building the conventional clown bike with bent wheels, and a steering wheel.
Smitty
-
Oh John, ignore works great!!
Thanks,
DW
-
Oh John, ignore works great!!
Thanks,
DW
No worries Dan... :mrgreen:
-
:cry: 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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.... 8-)
I think Malcolm may be a pond away but understands how it works over here. :-D
-
Stainless,
You are right about Malcom. It took some training but, I believe the Grasshopper is ready.
DW
-
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.
-
Hey Dan are you saying that I might be the 'new enlightened one' ? :evil: :roll:
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 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.
-
Hey Dan are you saying that I might be the 'new enlightened one' ? :evil: :roll:
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
(http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p126/Dynoroom/Heads/Morepictures313.jpg)
And here is a shot of the exhaust before it was repainted and installed back in the car during it's restoration.
(http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p126/Dynoroom/Heads/Morepictures328.jpg)
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....... :-o