Whatever, just don't try and tell me a jet is faster than a top
fuel car in the quarter mile. Period!
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
http://www.billhughes.com/

wrote:
>
> Bill can be incredibly difficult to communicate with when you are
> saying something that does not agree with what he thinks and he will
> drive you nuts if you do not really, really know your stuff. I concede
> that in general he knows more about the details of drag racing than I
> do, because I have little interest in drag racing, it's just not my
> sport. I'm sure it's a fine sport just like curling, jai alai, or
> whatever. I just don't really care about those sports, or spectator
> sports in general.
>
> What I have figured out is that the current TF or Funny Cars are now
> faster than the jets, but the jets had them beat until relatively
> recent times, and that all the trhust based cars-jets and rockets-are
> slower off the line and build their speed down the track. But that's
> apples vs. oranges because you are comparing a bizarre specialized
> propulsion system unique to fuel drag racing to a surplus engine sold
> for scrap price that is 50+ years old. Any jet engine made by
> Westinghouse is every bit of fifty years old, they quit making jet
> engines after the Korean War. Now if the Navy released Ottofuel II
> torpedo engines surplus and they started appearing drag cars maybe the
> solid block Hemis would be obsoleted overnight! In principle jet or
> rocket cars could beat even the current wheel driven cars with enough
> thrust to weight ratios, but not in 50 feet. Turboshaft engine
> dragsters, like the one Don Garlits built for exhibition, which use
> wheel driven power might be another matter too. Like the jets they are
> also apparently outside the rules.
>
> But even if you spend hours doing the homework, line up the results,
> and have it all notarized Bill will just change the subject if it isn't
> what he likes to hear. So why bother?