Record pointlessness an aircraft that can't take to the air, wheels that can't take the road, an obscene amount of fuel... to go nowhere : what a waste.
The point is, it's something you can't do.
Captain Danger
I don't know a lot about turbines but the fuel consumption numbers do not seem to add up. 40 GPM at idle , 80 GPM for 52,000 HP , and then afterburner only 10 more GPM but double the power?
Also 52,000 HP and only hit 440 mph? How long was she on afterburner 2 seconds? I would bet a top Fuel Dragster could do the same given a bit more gearing and a couple of mile long strip.
As to the fuel waste , come on give me a break, It is a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of fuels used every minute on earth. A few hundred gallons here or there will not spell the end of mankind.
Keith Reeder
"Also 52,000 HP and only hit 440 mph? How long was she on afterburner 2 seconds?"
Thinking the same thing myself.
Did she forget to take the handbrake off?
Dave B13
I'm sure Richard Noble is hoping someone takes the record he has had for 30 years, instead of having to break his own again with his 1000 MPH goal car in 2014 or 2015. http://www.bloodhoundssc.com/
zoid asteroid
The Eagle uses a LM-1500, a modern, industrially-refined version of the classic General Electric J79 turbojet with afterburner, and I would expect it to be something like as thirsty. The figures I could find on the J79's thirst for fuel are:
Specific fuel consumption: 1.965 lb/(h·lbf) (200 kg/(h·kN)) with afterburner, 0.85 lb/(h·lbf) (87 kg/(h·kN)) at military thrust.
These are not figures that I particularly understand, but I think I see that the "afterburner" figure is about twice that of "military thrust."
Another reference online reports that the prototype J79 in afterburner used about 10 gallons of fuel per SECOND to get around 15,000 lbs. thrust. This sounds more believable to my ears. I mean, when an engine this size is on full rock'n'roll trying to make something the size of an F-104 go supersonic, how long do I think 10 gallons of fuel is going to survive in a tailpipe that size? Yeah, about a second.
Ironically, they may have limited the speed across the measured course not just by throttle settings and such, but also by NOT holding the "handbrake" as long as they could have. Holding the brakes while letting the engine spool up is kinda like how far you draw the string back on a bow before letting the arrow fly.
I've been following these folks for several years now, as they've been hobbled by lack of funds. It's great to see them finally running it and getting some kind of a record. Hope they can continue! If they don't go after the LSR soon, I'm afraid they're going to have to go looking for a nice clean used SR-71.
ok here is the deal the reason that she did not go faster is this was the first time she had driven the car. ed shadle the owner of the car is using her to try and find someone to put up the money so he can go for the world land speed record held since 1997 by THRUST SSC owned by richard noble and driven by andy green. the record is 763.035mph. there is no offical womans land speed record jessi only went faster then craig breedloves wife did in 1965.sometime next year ed will let jessi try and go faster then kitty oneil ran in 1976 in the SMI Motivator. when they where at the lake bed last month ed ran the car up to 550mph he could have gone faster but the course they where using was a little shorter then they wanted. some of the systems on the car are still being tested. being a land speed racing fan i could care less how fast jessi went because what she did has no affect on the world land speed record i am waiting for ed to go after the big one. in the world of land speed racing the 763 record is the one that ed really wants.
The fact that a woman was at the controls has no meaning.
I tire of hearing the "first woman, (or red, green, white, black, blue man or woman) to - insert incredible feat here -"
Men and women are different. Anyone who tries to deny this is really to far PC to save.
Please tell me (someone because I am not familiar with the requirements to go fast in a ground jet) why would the record fastest period be restricted to men? Is there a strength component i don't see?
I get why weightlifting an other similar activities separate the two but records that seem to have no requirements that aren't shared by men and women should just be that.
I guess in a way it offends me when people scream for equality but then spout off in a way that makes me feel they don't really believe it.
No we are not over race or gender discrimination as long as someone brings it up as a point of interest.
Personally I'm bored with it all.
If a person can meet the standards, mental, physical, emotional etc.. For a specified job then they should have a chance. What do I care what they are?
Why am I even bothering the readers with this? Sorry for the diatribe. Please respond and tell me where I miss the point.
Dave B13
Interesting exposition of a cutaway similar to both J 79 and LF 1500 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Or6mIaSWZ8g&feature=youtube_gdata_player There could be a very bad case of mixing apples & oranges on the fuel consumption figures. Fuel consumption is affected tremendously by altitude (air density) & thrust (efficiency) by how fast air is hitting the intake of the engine. Recollected gleaning is that airliners use more fuel during taxi per minute than when cruising in the thin air at 35000 ft . During takeoff climbout fuel use is tremendous. Fuel consumption during static testing is going to be a lot higher. Fuel cosumption at low altitude to accelerate, and maintain speed is going to be a lot higher to have a mix that burns in higher density air and that pushes through higher density air.
Dave B13
Another item that could be confused occurs to me. Fuel consumption whe n In afterburner. Is the figure total fuel or just the fuel being routed to the afterburner.