Wow, when did this thread start? What kicked it off? I missed something.
John, I get the same results as you withing the value used for gravity.
Aero is not included nor is the rolling drag, etc or mechanical losses in
that pesky clutch. So prolly the aceleration curve is a lot diferent that
like a falling object. LIkely to be slow acceleration then ramping up to max
accel just to keep from over powering the track. And the torque being
applied to the tire and track is greater as the car goes doen the track
because the tire grows like a son of a gun at top end. Lots of parameters to
mess with.
But for what ever started this, neat! Ya'll keep up the good work.
Does anybody have a guess as to what the Cd and frontal area would be for a
top fuel or funny car? We could then calc the hp fairly accurately for the
end hp...
mayf, off planet in Pahrump
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Burk" <joyseydevil@comcast.net>
To: <land-speed@Autox.Team.Net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 10:54 AM
Subject: Re: Engine Config
> Dave - In reference to your doubts about a blown fuel drag engine realy
> putting out the claimed hp do you agree with these numbers - Distance
fallen
> in 4.42 seconds at 1 G is 1/2 A (16) X seconds squared (4.42 X 4.42) =
312.58'
> - Average acceleration for 1320' in 4.42 seconds is 1320'/312.58' = 4.22
G's -
> The accelerating force for a 1900# object at 4.22 G's is 8018# - If the
engine
> is running for the entire time the equivalent of 332 mph (472.27 ft/sec)
the
> hp is ft lb (472.27 ft X 8018 lb) per second (1) /550 = 6884.84 hp - The
true
> hp would be reduced some because the engine runs less than the equivalent
of
> 332 mph earlier in the run - Because the 6884.48 hp doesn't include the
aero
> drag (plenty) 6000 to 7000 hp can't be far off - John
|