Round exhaust exits vs fishtail

black hornet sounds like an american.

 

Have you ever seen both in person?

I have while restoring planes for the smithsonian where I was also privy to all of the reports from NACA and Rolls Royce.

"sparrow" is Mike Barrow who builds reno winning merlins.

Or maybe you can discuss it here at aces high.

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?topic=166010.0

Maybe my understanding and your lack of it is why I do aerodynamic testing at NASA's shuttle landing facility and you don't.

 

Yes, I have met a lot of janitors at NASA too.

Old Polish proverb: "The flea on the ass of the horse says "Look, we are plowing"


Popping exhaust. Now think about why that is happening. Do you know why?

Also that has nothing to do with the discussion.

Perhaps it's the word "thrust" that is the problem here.

If you believe that the exhaust coming out of those stacks are actually pushing the plane forward to any measurable degree you are wrong.

Those exhausts help extract the gases. this leads to higher volumetric efficiency of the combustion chambers resulting in more horsepower, more thrust.

The boundary layer is energized by more exhaust gas reducing the drag.

The fish tail exhaust has a larger end diameter and an exponential growth volume, sort of like a cone, shaped for the twin valve exhaust ports. This produces a "ram air effect". The cone shape with gases passing from the smaller area to the larger area LOWERS THE SPEED of the expanding gases and INCREASES THE VOLUME of gas leaving the ports.

Take a good look at the exhaust nozzles of any jet fighter the nozzles get smaller , the jet goes faster, right?

Take a look at the intakes of the MD F4 Phantom. Now why is that flat panel on that angle?

Take a look at the intake cone on the YF-12A / SR71, even the TR-2.

Why do they move in and out?

 

OMG you have a new job?

 

Wrong is wrong and looseleaf is wrong.....but he thinks that the engineers at rolls royce, NACA, and the racers at reno are wrong instead.

L to the O L

You've been hanging around McLoud too long and your basic physics has suffered for it.

 

Ha ha ha... why can't you deal with the reality and stop the personal insults. this is not some grade school recess talk.

That website gives a "gearhead" speech suitable to special ed jr. high kids.


All that talk about Allison con rods... too bad the guy doing the talk didn't have the real top secret at the time GM/Allison reports about why and how those con rods were special.

Yes, those reports were NOT shared with the Brits during the war. Seems it wasn't shared with most Americans afterwards.

It is only too obvious we are not speaking the same terms or understanding what we mean using those terms.


Put the broom down Higgins and pick up a few books.

I thought you were an intelligent guy working on that Ford Gt40.

Don't make me think all you did was get them coffee and change the spark plugs.

 

There are exactly 0 ford GT40s doing standing mile or bonneville racing.

Since you are arguing for exactness in this thread, the least you could do is get the car type correct.

I'll be spicing the thread with comparison testing done by naca and rolls royce but I want you to spew more crap before I land the kill strike.

Keep going.......I already know how this argument pans out because I have seen it how it ends many times.

I suggest you propose your argument in the link provided below since the link's destination is the site where guys who build and race the reno planes discuss topics such as this.

http://www.aafo.com/hangartalk/forumdisplay.php?f=2

Step up, post a topic there, and let's see if you can push your opinion without going on a tangent about connecting rods.

Maybe hearing it from Steve Hinton himself or Mike Barrow would be enough educate you.

 

Oh, you know how it's going to "pan out" ... so you're a clairvoyant too!


The point of the con rod story is that in your "hangar talk/gearhead" web pages there is a sharing of what the writer deems newsworthy and does not give any real explanations of the physics and the real reasons of why or how things are done. It is too obvious he does not know the stories nor the physics behind those mods. At the very best he is not telling and talking down to the readers.

Another case; the great after-cooling "secret" of ADI. it's just water/alcohol spray. No big secret and no great tech feat yet he talks like it's another great secret revealed.


The fundamental statement is that the special exhaust tips do not ad "jet propulsion" to the aircraft. In pure physics the "action-reaction" effect is negligible.


Those specially designed exhaust pipes increase the power of the engine and lower the drag.

 

Never heard of it

 

Oops.. maybe it was Czech or Bulgarian..... or was it a flea...

 

The fundamental statement is that the special exhaust tips do not ad "jet propulsion" to the aircraft. In pure physics the "action-reaction" effect is negligible.

yet all the engineers with better credentials disagree. Nuff said, until a useful articulate argument is presented that demonstrates otherwise, they're argument will carry the day. Simply stating so carries no weight.

 

Please show me where this "proof" is. I have yet to see any true documentation.

There are no persons who have presented credentials at all.

All I see is the improper use of the English language and repetition of non technical terms.

also try "their" instead of "they're"

 

I'll post the NACA report once this thread has run it's course.

 

Is this gonna be an expose about Loose's birth certificate being a forgery or something?

 

Alex Jones will do that

 

LOL !!!!!!




Hanau ia Hawaii !!!!

 

Yes, but even that is a fake photo copy!

 

Maybe I should save everyone the anxiety and anticipation.

Those NACA guys were able to CALCULATE (NOT MEASURED) that the "special exhausts" (only that they were directed back instead of out 90 degrees to the fuselage) produced about 68 lbs of thrust !

In those days they had no way to calculate the drag reduction of the energized boundary layer. (rather they did not or could not talk about it)

They did say the engine produced more horse power and since most aerodynamisists didn study internal combustion engines that much if at all.. the didn't see the conflict in their statements.

A lot of the research was and still is classified.

Some was released around 1958. The really good stuff is still secret to most.

"... yes, kiddies, the Sr-71 traveled at mach 3.5 and 80K feet, now go back and play with your toys..."

 

Should be more concerned about the drag effects of the 109.
A canopy that looks like it was designed after some back porch greenhouse and nose front shaped like a deformed potato. Ugly, really ugly, kind of like the me262....plain ugly, and poorly designed.

109




P51A
Oops! What's this....


A slightly better picture...



More nice pics...

Guess it wasn't needed later.






We usually go with what works. Nice design...for a jet.