If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Bill, I've come to the conclusion that you just don't get it. Let me break
it down for you, and I will type REALLLLLLLL SLOOOOOWWWW so you can understand what I said. I will try to emphasize the important words so that you can see this clearly. "Now, I'm sure _"IF"_ someone built an unlimited jet car based on the newest jet technology, it _"MIGHT"_ be a different story" Neither one of us knows what a jet car WOULD be capable of using whatever the most powerful jet engine is out there. I don't know what it is, and I don't really care either. I was trying to make a point that the jets used in these cars are USUALLY some older technology. I mean, for **** sakes, I pasted a link in a previous post that showed a TF car .3 seconds quicker than a jet car, and then did the math to show that the TF car would be about 132 feet ahead of the jet car based on a speed of 300MPH (just for ease of calculation, but I will figure it out for whatever speed and ET difference you would like), and yet because you're in such a hurry to make it look like you know everything about everything, you argued with me, even though I was agreeing with you. Me thinks that you just like to argue, and personally I have better things to do with my time than argue with someone like you. Chris "L.W. (ßill) Hughes III" > wrote in message ... > "Now, I'm sure if someone built an unlimited jet car based on the > newest jet technology, it might be a different story" BULLSH*TE! > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O > http://www.billhughes.com/ > > c wrote: > > > > HAHAHA Bill, I was saying that the TF cars are faster!!!! I think you need > > to read a little better! FFS! > > > > Chris |
Ads |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
You think a '51 Chrysler Hemi's not old technology?
http://www.billhughes.com/pomonaDrags.jpg God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O c wrote: > > Bill, I've come to the conclusion that you just don't get it. Let me break > it down for you, and I will type REALLLLLLLL SLOOOOOWWWW so you can > understand what I said. I will try to emphasize the important words so that > you can see this clearly. > > "Now, I'm sure _"IF"_ someone built an unlimited jet car based on the > newest jet technology, it _"MIGHT"_ be a different story" > > Neither one of us knows what a jet car WOULD be capable of using whatever > the most powerful jet engine is out there. I don't know what it is, and I > don't really care either. I was trying to make a point that the jets used in > these cars are USUALLY some older technology. I mean, for **** sakes, I > pasted a link in a previous post that showed a TF car .3 seconds quicker > than a jet car, and then did the math to show that the TF car would be about > 132 feet ahead of the jet car based on a speed of 300MPH (just for ease of > calculation, but I will figure it out for whatever speed and ET difference > you would like), and yet because you're in such a hurry to make it look like > you know everything about everything, you argued with me, even though I was > agreeing with you. Me thinks that you just like to argue, and personally I > have better things to do with my time than argue with someone like you. > Chris |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
L=2EW. Hughes III (=DFill) wrote: > You think a '51 Chrysler Hemi's not old technology? > http://www.billhughes.com/pomonaDrags.jpg > God Bless America, =DFill O|||||||O > > > c wrote: > > > > Bill, I've come to the conclusion that you just don't get it. Let me br= eak > > it down for you, and I will type REALLLLLLLL SLOOOOOWWWW so you can > > understand what I said. I will try to emphasize the important words so = that > > you can see this clearly. > > > > "Now, I'm sure _"IF"_ someone built an unlimited jet car based on the > > newest jet technology, it _"MIGHT"_ be a different story" > > > > Neither one of us knows what a jet car WOULD be capable of using whatev= er > > the most powerful jet engine is out there. I don't know what it is, and= I > > don't really care either. I was trying to make a point that the jets us= ed in > > these cars are USUALLY some older technology. I mean, for **** sakes, I > > pasted a link in a previous post that showed a TF car .3 seconds quicker > > than a jet car, and then did the math to show that the TF car would be = about > > 132 feet ahead of the jet car based on a speed of 300MPH (just for ease= of > > calculation, but I will figure it out for whatever speed and ET differe= nce > > you would like), and yet because you're in such a hurry to make it look= like > > you know everything about everything, you argued with me, even though I= was > > agreeing with you. Me thinks that you just like to argue, and personall= y I > > have better things to do with my time than argue with someone like you. The wheel driven cars and thrust propelled cars will always have certain differing characteristics in terms of their acceleration curves-the wheel driven cars will tend to launch harder and if you have a 50 foot drag race,will always win. A WWII prop driven fighter will out run a F-15 in fifty feet as well, same principle. But with a high enough thrust to weight ratio the jet cars will beat the current Top Fuel and Funny Cars over 1/4 mile, as the absolute rocket record shows. Whether anyone will is another question-a current low bypass fan fighter engine is in the neighborhood of five million dollars. Drag racing always outlawed anything that embarrassed their sponsor base-manufacturers of go-fast parts for Detroit iron. They outlawed the Allisons, they desanctioned the jets, etc. This whole long bull**** dissertation on drag racing is itself an example of Bill's tactics. Get him cornered on any subject and he goes off on some irrelevant crap with a blast that is "not even wrong". When you rise to the bait, then, of course one of his sockpuppets starts bitching this is off topic! And to answer Bill's last bon mot, there is not one piece in a current fuel dragster engine that is actually off a '51 Chrysler. It's all specially made and only shares the same bolt patterns and cylinder bore center spacing. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Seems surprisingly low-tech.
Dave Milne, Scotland '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ "L.W. (ßill) Hughes III" > wrote in message ... > We all have to abide by rules, a simple gear ratio change from the > mandatory 3.20 to one, or a little more Nitro from the maximum and I > could have the a new record. Those changes to keep the cars under three > hundred and thirty, are not yet written to my '98 NHRA Top Fuel book > section: http://www.billhughes.com/temp/NHRAtopRules.jpg > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O > > > wrote: > > > > The wheel driven cars and thrust propelled cars will always have > > certain differing characteristics in terms of their acceleration > > curves-the wheel driven cars will tend to launch harder and if you have > > a 50 foot drag race,will always win. A WWII prop driven fighter will > > out run a F-15 in fifty feet as well, same principle. But with a high > > enough thrust to weight ratio the jet cars will beat the current Top > > Fuel and Funny Cars over 1/4 mile, as the absolute rocket record shows. > > Whether anyone will is another question-a current low bypass fan > > fighter engine is in the neighborhood of five million dollars. > > > > Drag racing always outlawed anything that embarrassed their sponsor > > base-manufacturers of go-fast parts for Detroit iron. They outlawed the > > Allisons, they desanctioned the jets, etc. > > > > This whole long bull**** dissertation on drag racing is itself an > > example of Bill's tactics. Get him cornered on any subject and he goes > > off on some irrelevant crap with a blast that is "not even wrong". When > > you rise to the bait, then, of course one of his sockpuppets starts > > bitching this is off topic! > > > > And to answer Bill's last bon mot, there is not one piece in a current > > fuel dragster engine that is actually off a '51 Chrysler. It's all > > specially made and only shares the same bolt patterns and cylinder bore > > center spacing. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
blndspt proclaimed:
> No one interested? Wow, I've done so much of the hard work too! > Again, if you are interested (or curious), let me know: > It isn't you or the vehicle... just that nobody wants to travel to Arizona till the heat wave is over... |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Yes, I was surprised an engine like this 68 Ford OHC would now be
banned: http://www.billhughes.com/temp/AAFuelFordsohc.jpg God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O Dave Milne wrote: > > Seems surprisingly low-tech. > > Dave Milne, Scotland > '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Preferred Times:
Saturday, 30 5:00 PM Drag Racing:NHRA qualifying 209 ESPN2 Sunday, 31 12:00 AM Drag Racing:NHRA qualifying 209 ESPN2 Sunday, 31 5:30 PM NHRA 2Day 209 ESPN2 Sunday, 31 6:00 PM Drag Racing:NHRA in Sonoma, Cal. 209 ESPN2 Sunday, 31 9:00 PM Drag Racing:NHRA Sportsman Series 209 ESPN2 God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O http://www.billhughes.com/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Next Step In Arizona Emissions Changes | Laurie S. | Ford Mustang | 10 | April 17th 05 04:11 PM |
Arizona Emissions Alert!!! | Laurie S. | Ford Mustang | 7 | April 11th 05 03:19 PM |
Latest Update On Arizona Emissions Law | Laurie S. | Ford Mustang | 1 | February 17th 05 02:50 AM |
Arizona Emissions Update! | Laurie S. | Ford Mustang | 0 | January 24th 05 08:26 PM |
Arizona Emissions Alert - Important!!! | Laurie S. | Ford Mustang | 0 | January 18th 05 09:38 PM |