Hi Mayf,
I have lost my files on Aero due to a large computer crash.......
Do you know the coefficient of drag for a '53 Stude? And how does it
compare with a Firebird?
Pretty frustrating when I can't find my stuff!
Thanks in advance.
Skip Higginbotham (Who has verified that the old and the new do not
mix......Talk about systems integration....a Vertex and an EFI......EMI?
#@$%*&^^ What fun.)
At 09:03 AM 9/8/00 , you wrote:
>I have been wathing both threads with some interest. After doing a little
>thinking (very little, getting old), I remembered a cautionary note from deep
>in the recesses of my mind on using Nitrogen to fill your race car tires.
>When I first went to work for Boeing, about a thousand years ago, I worked in
>Flight Test at Boeing Field. While thee there was a terrible accident in the
>hangar. A mechanic had the task of filling a demounted 727, or maybe it was
>a 707, main landing gear tire with Nitrogen. Boeing used a cart with I
>believe it was 8 full K bottles (220 cu ft) of Nitrogen connected to a
>manifold and regulator. He connected to fillinf hose to the tire, which was
>laying flat on a pallet and began the filling process in which he set the
>regulator to the proper pressure. The lunch bell rang and he went off to
>lunch. He returned to the task right after lunch and when he reached the
>tire, it exploded. It blew him completely in half with body parts going every
>where. Of course he died instantly. Now, the investigation showed that the
>regulator leaked and permitted the tire and K bottles to come to an equal
>pressure, a very high pressure. The cautionary note for us is that the use of
>nitrogen to fill our tires through regulators whic get very little attention
>in the way of maintenance (prolly - assuming here), may prove to be a
>dangerous task indeed. So if you go this way and it is a good way, be very
>cautious in handling the regulator and oteher items and never leave the
>system connected to the tire.
>
>On categories,,,did I read that to have another class, there needs to be at
>least three cars requiring the new class. How many does it take for a new
>category which may involve lots of new classes within that category? Are
>there that many cars waiting to run and are now just running for time? I
>have no doubt that the organizational effort needed to conduct more classes
>is manageable because it is just book keeping. The only added effort is in
>training inspectors to recognize the non allowable hardware. Being somewhat
>cynical, I have to ask this question: why is this being contemplated? How
>many cars are there that do not have a class in today's set of categories and
>classes? Is this just and end run to allow a few more people to become record
>holders with their present cars which are not competetive? Since I have a
>little bit of familarity with the girly Camaro of Keith's IU'll use it as an
>example, hoping he doesn't get angry with me. Keith could very well go to the
>salvage yard and acquire a more aerodynamic Firebird body fairly easily.
>Transferring the mechanicals to the new car would involve probably just
>effort and little outlay. I am sure that this capabi;lity exists for others
>as well, so where's the beef? Why is beiong contemplated? Spell it out for
>me? Actually I don't care, but there seems to be a hidden agenda here. And as
>fo Keith he is going to build a monster BMS vehicle soon, so I am sure this
>doesn't affect him very much (I hope, he was the only car I could think
>of...and he is my bud).
>
>mayf
|