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) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42E0629C.30DFDC52@***.net...
> "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
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.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

 

You think a '51 Chrysler Hemi's not old technology?
http://www.----------.com/pomonaDrags.jpg
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------

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

 

You think a '51 Chrysler Hemi's not old technology?
http://www.----------.com/pomonaDrags.jpg
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------

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

 

You think a '51 Chrysler Hemi's not old technology?
http://www.----------.com/pomonaDrags.jpg
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------

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

 

You think a '51 Chrysler Hemi's not old technology?
http://www.----------.com/pomonaDrags.jpg
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------

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

 

L.W. ------ III (ßill) wrote:
> You think a '51 Chrysler Hemi's not old technology?
> http://www.----------.com/pomonaDrags.jpg
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:--------------------
>
> 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, andI
> > 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 easeof
> > 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 looklike
> > you know everything about everything, you argued with me, even though Iwas
> > 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.

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 -------- 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.

 

L.W. ------ III (ßill) wrote:
> You think a '51 Chrysler Hemi's not old technology?
> http://www.----------.com/pomonaDrags.jpg
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:--------------------
>
> 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, andI
> > 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 easeof
> > 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 looklike
> > you know everything about everything, you argued with me, even though Iwas
> > 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.

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 -------- 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.

 

L.W. ------ III (ßill) wrote:
> You think a '51 Chrysler Hemi's not old technology?
> http://www.----------.com/pomonaDrags.jpg
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:--------------------
>
> 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, andI
> > 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 easeof
> > 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 looklike
> > you know everything about everything, you argued with me, even though Iwas
> > 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.

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 -------- 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.

 

L.W. ------ III (ßill) wrote:
> You think a '51 Chrysler Hemi's not old technology?
> http://www.----------.com/pomonaDrags.jpg
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:--------------------
>
> 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, andI
> > 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 easeof
> > 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 looklike
> > you know everything about everything, you argued with me, even though Iwas
> > 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.

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 -------- 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.

 

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.----------.com/temp/NHRAtopRules.jpg
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------

calcerise@hotmail.com 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 -------- 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.