New vs old school

[nate2010]

No car has broken 250..They CAN...in a simulated environment, but the fact is there arn't tires that can handle that speed yet. And there is no where on the planet with the desired conditions to do so..

what a dumbass..... loads of cars have broken 250.... hell top fuel dragster do it every run.... if there arent tires that can take it, what are they on?? thin air lol... your the one making no sense.

.

Nate so they're using a 40 year old design, does that mean 40 years ago they could break 4's? No.
Of course you're going to use a older design, I'm pretty sure that all types of fossil fuel combustion engines have been invented by now, so you're going to have to borrow an idea from somewhere like it or not. But according to you, a Renesis engine (rx8's rotory) is an old motor using old technology, because helicopters used the engines prior to WWII? You're a horrible cook, because the only thing you can make is no sense.

LOL i dont know where to start..... A: helicopters did NOT EVER use a rotary i.e. wankel engine.... helos use turbine engines (basically a jet engine) totally different tech , matter of fact they are so different you've got to be extremely ignorant to even think they were related.. B: You missed the point totally... so ill say it in a little simpler terms. The old designs were good enough (at least in the hemispherical combustiobn chamber (you do know what that is right??)) to still be used today... i.e. its not all modern stuff thats powering these cars. And actually the renesis motor is "old tech" 30 years old or so... the only big changes were the placement of the intake/ exhaust ports...
Do i need to get in here and explain how all these things work so we can have an intellegent conversation, or are you going to stop making a fool of yourself??

[deathvanquished]

I thought he was having an intelligent conversation because HE wasn't flaming...other then the cook statement...

[nate2010]

well it was a conversation..... definatly not intelligent tho

[Busdriver]

That seems to be the norm with Nate. Name-calling, condescension, yadda yadda yadda. Just chill, man.

[nate2010]

sorry, theres something about blatant ignorance that gets me going... you know all about that dont you? Its more like you ppl dont like to be corrected and get defensive when you do Just accept you're wrong and move on, no need to get pissed.

[Driftster]

what a dumbass..... loads of cars have broken 250.... hell top fuel dragster do it every run.... if there arent tires that can take it, what are they on?? thin air lol... your the one making no sense.

God I love how people just pick out exclusive automobiles to try and prove a point. Yeah Top Fuel Dragsters go 300mph. But are we talking about Top fuel dragsters no we wern't
If you would have taken the time to read some of the prior posts instead of just sitting there making a horrible attempt at character assasination you would have noticed we were talking about your everyday made in a factory/assembly plant cars. Not tweaked and tuned sleds that burn 4 gallons of fuel in under 20 seconds. Maybe you glanced over where someone mentioned the Calloway vette. Or The Chrystler M, or the Mclaren, or the RUF

i dont know where to start..... A: helicopters did NOT EVER use a rotary i.e. wankel engine.... helos use turbine engines (basically a jet engine) totally different tech , matter of fact they are so different you've got to be extremely ignorant to even think they were related..

Hah, that's hilarious....Now let me make a citation here.

At the end of the nineteenth century, the internal combustion engine became available, making the development of full-sized vertical-flight craft with adequate power a possibility. However, other problems remained, particularly those relating to torque, dissymmetry of lift, and control. Inventors during the next two decades built many small prototype helicopters that attempted to solve these problems, but progress came only in small steps.

Gaetano A. Crocco of Italy patented an early cyclic pitch design in 1906. Crocco recognized that a way to change the pitch cyclically on the blades was needed if a helicopter was to work properly in forward flight.

During 1906, the brothers Louis and Jacques Bréguet began their helicopter experiments and meticulously tested airfoil shapes under the guidance of Professor Charles Richet. In 1907, they built the Bréguet-Richet Gyroplane No. 1, one of the first mechanical devices to actually hover. The gyroplane flew for one minute on August 24, 1907 (some sources say September 29, 1907) in what is generally accepted as the first vertical flight. A 45-horsepower (33.5-kilowatt) engine provided just enough power to achieve vertical flight. However, there was no means of control or stability, and it needed four men to steady it while it hovered about 2 feet (0.6 meters) off the ground. Without a control system, it was not a practical helicopter.

On November 13, 1907, the French bicycle maker Paul Cornu became the first person to rise vertically in powered free flight. His helicopter used two counter-rotating rotors to cancel torque. Some control was achieved by placing auxiliary paddle-like wings below the rotors, and sticks held by men on the ground stabilized the machine. Although Cornu achieved a historic first, rising about one foot (0.6 meter) and hovering for about 20 seconds, the controls were inadequate, and the craft never developed into a practical helicopter.

In June 1909, Igor Sikorsky built his first helicopter, the S-1, in Kiev, Russia. The wooden craft weighed 450 pounds (204 kilograms) and had dual coaxial rotors. But the two blades were inefficient, and the most powerful engine that was available, a 25-horsepower (20 kilowatt) Anzani engine, could not lift its own weight. The next year, he built the S-2, which weighed only 400 pounds (181 kilograms) and had a three-blade rotor system. This model could rise, but the engine was too weak to carry a passenger. The machine also shook and vibrated violently because it needed a stiffer frame. Sikorsky turned to airplane development, returning to helicopters only in the 1930s after he emigrated to the United States.

The first vertical flight machine in the United States seems to have been developed by Emile Berliner and John Newton Williams. Berliner designed what may have been the first production rotary aircraft engine, the 36-horsepower (27-kilowatt) Adams-Farwell engine. In 1908, Williams constructed a coaxial machine for Berliner using two of these engines. It reportedly lifted both Williams and the machine—a weight of 610 pounds (277 kilograms)—but was probably steadied from the ground. Williams later built another craft using a 40-horsepower (30-kilowatt) Curtiss engine. It hovered at around three feet (0.9 meter), again steadied from the ground. Berliner also was the first to propose the auxiliary vertically mounted tail rotor.

Professor Zhukovskii and his students at Moscow University may also have constructed a primitive coaxial helicopter in 1910. Zhukovskii was well known for his theoretical contributions to aerodynamics and published several papers on the subject of rotating wings and helicopters.

In 1912, the Russian Boris Yuriev built a 445-pound (202-kilogram) helicopter that had a modern-looking single rotor and smaller tail rotor and large diameter, high aspect ratio blades. The tail rotor was needed to counteract the torque generated by the main rotor but it added weight and like Sikorsky's helicopters, had an undersized engine. The machine never flew properly. But Yuriev was one of the first to use a tail rotor and also one of several pioneers to propose the concept of cyclic pitch for rotor control.

Around 1912, the Danish aviation pioneer Jacob Christian Ellehammer became interested in vertical flight. He designed a coaxial helicopter with counter-rotating rotors that were stacked vertically. Each rotor consisted of a large aluminum ring about 20 feet (six meters) in diameter with six five-foot (1.5-meter) blades attached to the outside edge of the rotors. A cyclic pitch mechanism was used to change the pitch of the rotating blades and for control. Ellehammer made several short hops in the craft.

Two Austrians, Stephan Petroczy and Professor Theodore von Karman, built and flew a coaxial rotor helicopter during the closing years of World War I. Intended for observation, this machine included a pilot/observer position above the wooden counter-rotating rotors, inflated bags for landing gear, and a quick-opening parachute. Three 120-horsepower (89-kilowatt) rotary engines provided power. The machine achieved numerous short vertical flights restrained by cables and reached a height of more than 150 feet (46 meters).

Around 1919, Henry Berliner built a counter-rotating coaxial rotor machine that made brief uncontrolled hops to a height of about four feet (1.2 meters) while steadied from the ground. In 1922, he mounted two coaxial counter-rotating rotors on the wing tips of a Nieuport biplane fuselage. Sets of movable vanes—flat surfaces mounted under the rotors—provided some control. The craft reportedly could maneuver in all directions and obtained a speed of about 40 miles per hour (64 kilometers per hour). In June 1922, it hovered around 12 feet (3.3 meters) off the ground and was successfully demonstrated to the U.S. Army in 1924. The Berliner aircraft are considered the first rudimentary piloted helicopters developed in the United States.

During the late 1910s and early 1920s, Louis Brennan of England's Royal Aircraft Establishment worked on a helicopter with an exceptionally large two-bladed rotor. To deal with the problem of torque, Brennan used a single rotor and mounted propellers on the blades themselves. The use of servo-flaps or ailerons inboard of the propellers achieved control. He took several low-altitude flights, which ended in October 1925, when the machine crashed.

In the 1920s, the Marquis Raul Pateras Pescara, an Argentinean working in Europe, achieved one of the first successful applications of cyclic pitch. He was also the first to demonstrate that a helicopter with engine failure could still reach the ground safely by means of autorotation—the phenomenon that caused blades to turn even without power being applied to them that resulted from the flow of air as the craft moved through it. His coaxial helicopter had biplane-type rotors with a total of 20 lifting surfaces. In 1924, Pescara set a new world record by flying his craft almost one-half mile (0.8 kilometer) in 4 minutes and 11 seconds—a speed of about eight miles per hour (13 kilometers per hour)—at a height of six feet (1.8 meters).

A Russian immigrant to the United States, George de Bothezat, designed and built a four-rotor machine powered by a 180-horsepower (134-kilowatt) rotary engine under the sponsorship of the U.S. Army. It weighed 3,600 pounds (1,633 kilograms), and the x-shaped structure was more than 60 feet (18.3 meters) wide, with four huge fan-shaped rotors mounted at each corner. The pilot controlled individual collective pitch mechanisms for each rotor. De Bothezat flew the helicopter on its first flight at McCook Field near Dayton, Ohio, in October 1922. This flight lasted about a minute and a half as the craft rose six feet (1.8 meters), drifted with the wind, and landed some 500 feet (152 meters) away. Over the next two years, the helicopter made more than 100 test flights—some rising to 15 feet (4.6 meters) and one with three passengers clinging to the frame to demonstrate the machine's stability. The U.S. Army tested the machine and commented favorably on it. But the Army abandoned it because of its complexity and unreliability and because de Bothezat was difficult to work with.

Taken from http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Rotary/early_20th_century/HE2.htm
Since flaming started why not.

"I guess the Black hawks wern't the only things shot down. Oooh!"

B: You missed the point totally... so ill say it in a little simpler terms. The old designs were good enough (at least in the hemispherical combustiobn chamber (you do know what that is right??)) to still be used today... i.e. its not all modern stuff thats powering these cars. And actually the renesis motor is "old tech" 30 years old or so... the only big changes were the placement of the intake/ exhaust ports...

Like I said before guy, if you want to get into it. EVERYTHING is old tech, because everything like it or not stemmed from something else, but you obviously didn't read THAT part of my prior post.

Do i need to get in here and explain how all these things work so we can have an intellegent conversation, or are you going to stop making a fool of yourself??

Just a guy has a nice conversation you have to go and start the name calling. Society these days.

[nate2010]

No car has broken 250..They CAN...in a simulated environment, but the fact is there arn't tires that can handle that speed yet. And there is no where on the planet with the desired conditions to do so..

God I love how people just pick out exclusive automobiles to try and prove a point. Yeah Top Fuel Dragsters go 300mph. But are we talking about Top fuel dragsters no we wern't
If you would have taken the time to read some of the prior posts instead of just sitting there making a horrible attempt at character assasination you would have noticed we were talking about your everyday made in a factory/assembly plant cars. Not tweaked and tuned sleds that burn 4 gallons of fuel in under 20 seconds. Maybe you glanced over where someone mentioned the Calloway vette. Or The Chrystler M, or the Mclaren, or the RUF.

well read your first quote... what you said was "no" car had broken 250.... I mentioned you had, dont go back and try to add classification to a statement after the fact.

Oh you flip out on me about using specific classes of vehicles, and you use a one off PROTOTYPE craft to prove that helicopters use rotary engines?!?!??!!! Not to mention it never even was capable of flight on its own... no real helicopters ever used rotary engines.

...90% of the ones racing professionally are using NEW engines, Old cars + new tech = amazing

This is what i was mentioning.... these cars that are pulling these drag records are using "old" engines.... developed 50 years, I was just trying to show that just because its new does not mean its superior

[Driftster]

well read your first quote... what you said was "no" car had broken 250.... I mentioned you had, dont go back and try to add classification to a statement after the fact.

When I post I like to stay on topic, had we been talking about dragsters I would have spoken of dragsters. However we were talking about common place automobiles, not dragsters. I'm sorry if you couldn't make that connection without me using more clues in my first statement but that isn't my responsibility.

Oh you flip out on me about using specific classes of vehicles, and you use a one off PROTOTYPE craft to prove that helicopters use rotary engines?!?!??!!! Not to mention it never even was capable of flight on its own... no real helicopters ever used rotary engines.

None of those were capable of flight?

flight1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (flt)
n.

1. 1. The motion of an object in or through a medium, especially through the earth's atmosphere or through space. <LI type=a>An instance of such motion.
   2. The distance covered in such motion.
2. 
   
   1. The act or process of flying through the air by means of wings.
   2. The ability to fly.
3. A swift passage or movement.
4. A scheduled airline run or trip.
5. A group, especially of birds or aircraft, flying together. See Synonyms at flock1.
6. A number of aircraft in the U.S. Air Force forming a subdivision of a squadron.
7. A round of competition, as in a sports tournament.
8. An exuberant or transcendent effort or display: a flight of the imagination; flights of oratory.
9. A series of stairs rising from one landing to another.

Well judging by the dictionary all of them achieved flight, and the last 2 instances did so without restraint soooo.

This is what i was mentioning.... these cars that are pulling these drag records are using "old" engines.... developed 50 years, I was just trying to show that just because its new does not mean its superior

So you're saying that 50 years ago the cars and engines were doing the same thing. 50 years ago a car with a hemispherical head could make 6000+ horsepower? 50 Years ago a car could travel 1320 feet in 4 seconds at 300mph from a dead stop? Because if you're not saying that then you've just won my argument for me.

[nate2010]

When I post I like to stay on topic, had we been talking about dragsters I would have spoken of dragsters. However we were talking about common place automobiles, not dragsters..

you never said what kind of vehicles... you said "no" (meaning none at all) car could hit 250, which going by that statement you were wrong. Word your stuff a little better next time.

Well judging by the dictionary all of them achieved flight, and the last 2 instances did so without restraint soooo...

It didnt say the last 2 were rotary powered, and its very doubtful they were.... so again, you have no point.

So you're saying that 50 years ago the cars and engines were doing the same thing. 50 years ago a car with a hemispherical head could make 6000+ horsepower? 50 Years ago a car could travel 1320 feet in 4 seconds at 300mph from a dead stop? Because if you're not saying that then you've just won my argument for me.

No, read it again, god what are you 13???? I said the engines were the same.... which they are... same casting #'s on the heads and blocks as the 50 year old hemi counterparts... hence they are old engines. now everything else that has gone into it. Advances in fuel, superchargers, tires etc. is what has made them so fast.

[Driftster]

you never said what kind of vehicles... you said "no" (meaning none at all) car could hit 250, which going by that statement you were wrong. Word your stuff a little better next time.

ok kid i'll keep that in mind.

It didnt say the last 2 were rotary powered, and its very doubtful they were.... so again, you have no point.

Come on, you've got to be kidding me. READ THE FIRST SENTENCE IN THE LAST PARAGRAPH. Good lord you're just so eager to be right it's blinded you.

No, read it again, god what are you 13???? I said the engines were the same.... which they are... same casting #'s on the heads and blocks as the 50 year old hemi counterparts... hence they are old engines. now everything else that has gone into it. Advances in fuel, superchargers, tires etc. is what has made them so fast.

..........................
Besides that, which needs no further scrutiny.
Show me some sources, show me some pics of a Top fuel dragster using a piece of 1950's equipment even if it's not MADE in 1950's show me a STOCK cast head or something on a car making 6000+ HP

If you don't wish to do that, i'd like to point you back to a previous post where I said pretty much EVERY TYPE OF COMBUSTION ENGINE HAS BEEN INVENTED.
So the reinvention of something isn't going to happen. WHICH MEANS!
OF course something is going to have to come from somewhere else, it's called influence.
That doesn't change the fact that
New, Shiny, pretty, BETTER MADE things make cars and parts more dependable and more powerful
than if I were to throw a 1964 170ci Six cyl back into a 1964 mustang with a set of piston rings developed in 1964, and a set of pistons developed in 1964 and a head developed in 1964 and a transmission developed in 1964.