Slashdot Mirror


VW Beetle Fitted with a Jet Engine

6031769 writes "Ron Patrick has decided to go that little bit further by souping up his VW beetle with a jet engine, as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle. Serious planning went into the project. Patrick said, 'We did (computerized) structural analysis and we did stability analysis. And by God, you know what happens? It works!' Contrast with the Rocket Boy to see how it should not be done." Yes, the Darwin award winner was found to be bogus, but unlike the myth, Ron still lives!

283 comments

  1. Prior art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hey i have prior art! I should have patented this...

    Signed,
    Batman

    1. Re:Prior art by bhtooefr · · Score: 2, Funny

      I guess this was VW's prototype for the JETta? So, if it WAS a prototype, then would it violate any patents, seeing as they didn't put it into production? :P

      (OK, OK, OK, I know, Jetta's the name of a wind... but I couldn't resist. ;))

    2. Re:Prior art by Huwawa · · Score: 1

      I've always wanted to do this with a minivan.

  2. Hmmm... by talkingc · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is there a bumper sticker that says: How do you like my driving? Dial 1-800-EAT-SHIT.

    1. Re:Hmmm... by Duhavid · · Score: 3, Funny

      It actually says

      "Ho"

      Cause that is all you can read.

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    2. Re:Hmmm... by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Funny

      Is there a bumper sticker that says: How do you like my driving? Dial 1-800-EAT-SHIT.

      At that speed it should say, 1-800-DRINK-SHIT

    3. Re:Hmmm... by Cl1mh4224rd · · Score: 4, Funny
      Is there a bumper sticker that says: How do you like my driving? Dial 1-800-EAT-SHIT.
      "If you can read this, start dialing the fire department."
      --
      People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
    4. Re:Hmmm... by CortoMaltese · · Score: 1

      "Horn can't be heard, watch for finger."

    5. Re:Hmmm... by aminorex · · Score: 1

      Unlike Rocket Boy, one day Ron will rot (with the fools who claim in their hubris to have refuted Rocket Boy's very existence). Rocket Boy, by contrast, will live forever. And that's the way it should be.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    6. Re:Hmmm... by Neurotoxic666 · · Score: 1

      If you can read this, you're hot.

      --
      You are more than the sum of what you consume. Desire is not an occupation.
    7. Re:Hmmm... by trentblase · · Score: 1

      More like 1-800-BREATHE-SHIT

  3. VW Thunder by Metabolife · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ah.. finally, uselessness done right!

    1. Re:VW Thunder by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't worry, it won't last long. A German couple will be along shortly to destory the car.

      "Time to unpimp zee auto!"

    2. Re:VW Thunder by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1, Funny

      But can you outrun linux on it?

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    3. Re:VW Thunder by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      For those of you who don't get the joke

      "It's definitely sucking"

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    4. Re:VW Thunder by Crizp · · Score: 1

      Oh snap! Wasn't that Peter Stormare? Hilarious!

    5. Re:VW Thunder by jafac · · Score: 1

      Aw - "done right" would have been a 55 beetle fitted with a vintage engine from a Messerschmit-262.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  4. Zoom. by AlexanderDitto · · Score: 3, Funny

    In Soviet Russia, beetle get smashed on windsheild. In America, Beetle smash YOU!

    --
    No, Mr. Green. Communism is just a red herring.
  5. Is it me by ad0gg · · Score: 4, Funny

    Or does combining a volkswagon bug and a tail pipe so large that it make goatse jealous seem very.. nevermind.

    --

    Have you ever been to a turkish prison?

    1. Re:Is it me by 1nsane0ne · · Score: 1, Funny

      Is it just me or does seeing a car w/ a big exhaust and thinking of a mans ass seem very ....nevermind. And in regards to your sig, Have you ever seen a grown man naked?

    2. Re:Is it me by ad0gg · · Score: 1, Offtopic
      The temptation to change my sig to:

      I'm the most frequent slashdot poster at my jr high

      Is very great.

      --

      Have you ever been to a turkish prison?

    3. Re:Is it me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what, now you're not masturbating to your mum's underwear drawer anymore? You do it in your skank's one? Does she have pretty socks?

    4. Re:Is it me by ettlz · · Score: 1

      Do either of you two like movies about gladiators?

  6. Defensive driving by CaptainCarrot · · Score: 4, Funny
    From TFA:

    Patrick says that once in a while he puts on a crash helmet (mainly as a sound muffler), takes the car out on nearby Highway 237 in the wee hours of the morning and fires it up for a brief and hopefully cop-free run.

    I frequently travel home from work on Hwy. 237 in Sunnyvale in the wee hours of the morning. I think I'd better watch out for this guy. I doubt my unmodfied Hyundai Accent could keep up, or even get out of the way for that matter.

    --
    And the brethren went away edified.
    1. Re:Defensive driving by Spacejock · · Score: 2, Funny

      I doubt it too. On the other hand, you'd see this guy coming from miles away - sky lit up with the flames and forty patrol cars on his tail.

    2. Re:Defensive driving by moosesocks · · Score: 0

      I doubt it too. On the other hand, you'd see this guy coming from miles away - sky lit up with the flames and forty patrol cars on his tail.


      I don't know which scares me more... this guy driving a jet-powered VW or that you're advocating driving on the wrong side of the road.

      If you can see him coming, you're obviously on the wrong side....
      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    3. Re:Defensive driving by AlexanderDitto · · Score: 1

      He does mention he has friends out in front of him, and behind- checking for cops, no doubt- so they might clue you in on why it sounds as if a plane were landing behind you.

      What I can't figure out is why. What's the point? He's not even interested in going fast, according to the article. Just the lights and the noise? I could give that to him with a flashlight and my hairdryer.

      My Kerosene powered hairdryer, of course.

      --
      No, Mr. Green. Communism is just a red herring.
    4. Re:Defensive driving by Phat_Tony · · Score: 1

      I doubt the patrol cars would be very close on his tail.

      --
      Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
    5. Re:Defensive driving by jbrader · · Score: 4, Funny

      Those mirrors on your car are for looking behind you.

      --
      You are so boring that when I see you my feet go to sleep.
    6. Re:Defensive driving by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      at least only till the radiator melts.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    7. Re:Defensive driving by phlyingpenguin · · Score: 1

      You can outrun a cop. However, you can't outrun a radio.

    8. Re:Defensive driving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose it's a good thing that all USAF jets have radios?

      I bet it would outrun a ghetto bird...

    9. Re:Defensive driving by chicagotypewriter · · Score: 3, Funny

      ...and those eyes are for looking in front of you, possibly even into the other lane if you are that skilled.

    10. Re:Defensive driving by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1
      He's not even interested in going fast, according to the article. Just the lights and the noise? I could give that to him with a flashlight and my hairdryer

      If you've ever stood next to a running jet engine (F-15 at full AB) oyu'd understand why.

    11. Re:Defensive driving by Maradine · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm hoping he gets his direction straight . . . seeing as 237 T-bones into El Camino Real.

      Ouch.

      --

      trustedworlds.net - gaming, security, and the gunk that lives in between

    12. Re:Defensive driving by ForestGrump · · Score: 1

      Don't worry. El Camino Hospital is about 1/2 mile beyond that.

      --
      Is it true that more people vote for the winner of American Idol, than vote for the president? -Ali G.
    13. Re:Defensive driving by mrchaotica · · Score: 2, Funny
      I doubt my unmodfied Hyundai Accent could keep up, or even get out of the way for that matter.
      Hey, I drive an Accent too, and handling is the one thing it doesn't suck at!
      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    14. Re:Defensive driving by ultranova · · Score: 3, Funny

      You can outrun a cop. However, you can't outrun a radio.

      Sure you can. After all, the speed of electromagnetic radiation in atmosphere is less than c. Now, a VW Beetle might not be able to outrun light even in an atmosphere, but it certainly is not impossible.

      Another possibility would be to just jam the radio. Or perhaps use a color-changing car paint and a license plate switcher.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    15. Re:Defensive driving by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Employ localized GPS and radio jamming. That should fix your problem.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    16. Re:Defensive driving by Dr.+GeneMachine · · Score: 4, Funny
      Sure you can. After all, the speed of electromagnetic radiation in atmosphere is less than c.
      ...
      Or perhaps use a color-changing car paint

      No need for the color changing paint - if you travel at that speed, you would be sufficiently red-shifted for the tailing cops. Just run, then park at the next lot - "No officer, I didn't see that red car speeding by."

      --
      This comment does not exist.
    17. Re:Defensive driving by Skevin · · Score: 4, Funny

      > Or perhaps use a color-changing car paint and a license plate switcher.

      You don't need color-changing car paint. At relativistic speeds, the officer you are moving away from will phone his buddies to watch out for a dark red car which is very long. His buddies down the road will only see an oncoming *blue* car which is short but has elongated sides. A police chopper overhead will see you arrive at the officers ahead at the same time as the officer you just left, and will have to conclude there are two separate cars. If any officers decide to enter pursuit, you just turn around for a split second, and bam! Eighty subjective years will have gone by for the offending officers.

      If any of this is confusing, just give me a call and we'll drive to Vegas together in my relativistically modified VW Bug... none of this jet engine crap. All I demand is that you're female and sexy.

      Solomon

      --
      "Twice half-assed makes an ass whole." --Solomon K. Chang
    18. Re:Defensive driving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just turn around

      Just what is the turning radius of a VM traveling at near C, anyway?

    19. Re:Defensive driving by VendettaMF · · Score: 1

      All I demand is that you're female and sexy.
      Is that before or after the relatavistic 80 years are added?

      --
      kartune85 : Incapable of reason, observation or learning. A kind of dim, drab, flightless parrot.
    20. Re:Defensive driving by Petersson · · Score: 1
      I doubt it too. On the other hand, you'd see this guy coming from miles away - sky lit up with the flames and forty patrol cars on his tail.

      Sir, do you wish to serve the cops deeply fried or just slightly toasted?

      --
      I'm not insane. My mother had me tested.
    21. Re:Defensive driving by medgooroo · · Score: 1

      colour changing paint??? number plate changer?? "Pursue the red VW with the jet engine sticking out the back!" "Cant see it, just a yellow one here"

      --
      Brain(s): 0.0% user, 1.3% system, 0.1% nice, 98.6% idle
    22. Re:Defensive driving by The+Snowman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If you've ever stood next to a running jet engine (F-15 at full AB) oyu'd understand why.

      If you stood within 100 meters of an F-15 without hearing protection, you'd be deaf. Every once in a while at Langley AFB (no, not the CIA place) I'd drive toward the side gate next to the runway, and one would be taking off. If I had the unfortunate luck to do so while they're doing a vertical ascension takeoff, windows up in my truck or not, it HURT. FYI that's when they take off at full throttle, full afterburners, and as soon as they're a few feet above the runway, turn to go straight up. As if the afterburners aren't loud enough, once the ass end of the plane has that flat pavement 10 feet behind it, the noise scatters all over and even half a mile away you can't hear the person next to you.

      So yes, to the GP poster, flashlights and a hairdryer have NOTHING on a fighter jet with a cocky bastard at the stick.

      Useless trivia fact: while the F-15 can perform this maneuver, the F-16 lacks the thrust/mass ratio to sustain that climb for more than a second or two.

      --
      24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
    23. Re:Defensive driving by john83 · · Score: 4, Funny
      I doubt it too. On the other hand, you'd see this guy coming from miles away - sky lit up with the flames and forty patrol cars on his tail.
      Yeah, but it's okay, he's on a mission from God.
      --
      Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
    24. Re:Defensive driving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He did this for the same reason that a dog licks his balls, Because he can!

    25. Re:Defensive driving by odyaws · · Score: 2, Funny
      No need for the color changing paint - if you travel at that speed, you would be sufficiently red-shifted for the tailing cops.
      My favorite bumper sticker ever (sighted at JPL): A big red sticker that says "If this sticker is blue, you're driving too fast!"
      --
      Still trying to think of a clever sig...
    26. Re:Defensive driving by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      I think the license plate is the least of your identification problems. The big Jet engine hanging out the back is a bit of a give away. I can just hear it now... "No officer, I was not speeding back there. That was the other VW Beatle with Jet engine; he just drove by why don't you check on up the road a bit."

      Next comes "Please step out of the car sir" and the click sound of the handcuffs.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    27. Re:Defensive driving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and cabritos is only a mile from that. yummy.

    28. Re:Defensive driving by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Useless trivia fact: while the F-15 can perform this maneuver, the F-16 lacks the thrust/mass ratio to sustain that climb for more than a second or two.

      Totally wrong.

      F-15C max take off weight (MTOW): 68,000 lbs. F100-PW-220 engines max thrust in full AB: 23,830 lbs x 2 = 47,660 lbs.

      F-16C MTOW: 37,500 lbs. GE F110-GE-129 max thrust in full AB: 29,000 lbs.

      With a standard fuel/weapons load (which is lower than the MTOW) the F-15 and F-16 have about the same thurst to weight ratio, and both can pull some eye-watering "max performance" climbs. Of course the F-22 leaves them both in the dust.

      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
    29. Re:Defensive driving by HoboMaster · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but if you're doing 250+, who cares? Cop doesn't have time to read your license plate, and is never gona catch up with you. All he'll know is that come guy in a Beetle just flew past him.

      For that matter, this can be achieved at speeds much lower than that, as long as you're going considerably faster than the cop. I've passed a cop while doing 100. He was just turning onto the highway. He hit his lights for a second, but by the time he even got to highway speeds, I was about a mile ahead, so he turned them back off and continued on his way.

      --
      Remember kids, tin foil doesn't work, so use LeadHat.
    30. Re:Defensive driving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All I demand is that you're female and sexy.

      A slashdotter getting it on with a sexy female? That's even less believable that a VW that will travel at the speed of light!

      (please don't hurt me;)

    31. Re:Defensive driving by lhbtubajon · · Score: 1

      The F-16 is basically a jet engine with wings. It can perform a vertical climb until it runs out of fuel or atmosphere.

    32. Re:Defensive driving by CarnivoreMan · · Score: 1

      Radio: Officers, be on the lookout for a jet powered 2000 Silver Volkswagen Beetle. Officer: I have a visual! He's headed northbound on... oh wait wait, nevermind. This on is red.

    33. Re:Defensive driving by Jeremi · · Score: 1
      colour changing paint??? number plate changer?? "Pursue the red VW with the jet engine sticking out the back!" "Cant see it, just a yellow one here"


      It's a good point -- what this guy needs to do next is modify his design so that the engine is stored inside the car, and extend out only just before use, in response to pressing a little red button on the dashboard... very 007 (not that 007 would be caught dead in a VW bug)

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    34. Re:Defensive driving by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 2, Interesting
      If you stood within 100 meters of an F-15 without hearing protection, you'd be deaf.

      Very true. We were required to wear double. Plugs and earmuffs.

      But as to your F-16 comment, actually some of them, depending on configuration, can continue to accellerate in the vertical. I got an incentive ride while in Germany, and we did in fact go vertical, gaining speed as we went up. But yes...the twin engine F-15 has a better thrust to weigt ratio than the single engine F-16.

      Other useless trivia...the Langley airshow is this weekend. The East Coast F-15 demo pilot is stationed here at Langley, and he practices once or twice a week. The other day he set off many, many car alarms as he went over the base at about 200' in full AB.

    35. Re:Defensive driving by The+Snowman · · Score: 1

      As others pointed out, my assertion is not necessarily true. You are correct, an F-16 properly configured can go straight up without stalling. However, an F-15, while more massive, has more than enough thrust to do this under any configuration.

      While I haven't flown either one, I have watched them strut their stuff and the F-16 tends to look like it's struggling to go straight up. It slows down, and typically doesn't do this very long. I've seen F-15s go straight up and out of sight without a quiver or slowing down.

      --
      24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
    36. Re:Defensive driving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "No officer, it wasn't me you saw doing 160mph. It must have been the *BLUE* VW beetle with a jet engine sticking out the back. Mine's silver, completely different car!"

      You know, I think it might just work!

    37. Re:Defensive driving by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1
      When we came back from the ride, my pilot remarked to another pilot "you know, I think 509 (tailnumber 85-509, F-16D), will keep going straight up until it runs out of air"

      I think the difference is that the D model two seater carries less overall fuel than the C model. Right behind the C model cockpit is one of the fuel tanks, which is absent on the 2 seater.

      What's really nice is watching the F-22's at Langley do the same thing.

    38. Re:Defensive driving by chupa+mi+cabra · · Score: 1

      i'm not confused. i'm laughing my ass off. does this disqualify me for road-trip buddy status?

    39. Re:Defensive driving by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      If you've ever stood next to a running jet engine (F-15 at full AB) oyu'd understand why.
      Of course the T-58 is only 400 pounds thrust, wchih is only about 1% that of an F-15. I'm sure it's loud, but not nearly so loud as an F-15, nor as much of a kick in the seat.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    40. Re:Defensive driving by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      If any of this is confusing, just give me a call and we'll drive to Vegas together

      I'd rather not. That's bat country.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    41. Re:Defensive driving by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Naah, much more fun: A button for releasing the engine. Good for clearing a roadblock.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    42. Re:Defensive driving by icbkr · · Score: 1

      Odd, when I was driving out of Ramstein AFB, while they were using the aux runway, I'd of sworn that was an F-16 doing a vertical over my jeep. But hey, I'm just ex-AF. I might not recognize the diff between a 16 and a 15. Then again, maybe your civilian F-16 performance 'figgers' aren't quite spot on...

      "Huh. Upgrades." - Neo

      Protest should never be attempted by amateurs.

  7. Slashdotted by cwalk · · Score: 0

    For the video, I get 4 seconds of continuous video followed by 20 seconds of "Buffering".

  8. welcome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    welcome to last week...

  9. the Volkswagon Irre by donaldGuy · · Score: 5, Funny

    German for nutcase

  10. Here's his personal website w/pics by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://www.ecm-co.com.nyud.net:8080/jetbeetle/
    http://www.ecm-co.com.nyud.net:8090/jetbeetle/

    Coralizing the link doesn't seem to work for me, but YMMV.

    FYI - It's hosted on his business website, so try not to /. it.
    A mirror wouldn't hurt.

    -http://www.ecm-co.com/jetbeetle/

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
    1. Re:Here's his personal website w/pics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI - It's hosted on his business website, so try not to /. it.

      Uh, you just did.

  11. "hopefully copfree run" by ZachPruckowski · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yeah, I'd hate to see that speeding ticket. It'd cost twice as much as the rocket car.

    1. Re:"hopefully copfree run" by alxkit · · Score: 1

      well, since this guy managed to mount it on the car, maybe he can mount that miscile he is talking about to it too. you know - just to give the officer of peace a warning shot discouraging him from catching up.

    2. Re:"hopefully copfree run" by ZachPruckowski · · Score: 3, Funny

      yes, because you use your only missile to fire a warning shot...

      Then what?

    3. Re:"hopefully copfree run" by surprise_audit · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Reminds me about a story I heard back in the 80's. This may just be urban legend, but apparently there was this guy in Europe who fitted a Rolls-Royce Merlin engine into a car. I think he got the engine out of a Spitfire fighter plane. Anyway, he'd go roaring up and down the autobahns in Germany at godawful speeds, but never got a ticket. As the story goes, there are a couple of places (not on the autobahn, I guess) where there are speed traps, with radar and cameras to take snapshots of speeding vehicles. The cops knew this guy had been past, but they couldn't prove it, because the camera only ever got photos of empty road. The reaction time in the system was so slow that by the time the camera fired, the car was already out of sight.

    4. Re:"hopefully copfree run" by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'd hate to see that speeding ticket. It'd cost twice as much as the rocket car.

      Such a car is like the Pheonix Suns ballteam: You make up for lackluster defense by tons of offense: outrun the damn cop.

    5. Re:"hopefully copfree run" by hector_uk · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "In the 1960s John Dodd of Kent, England put a Merlin engine (some say it actually was a Rover built Rolls-Royce Meteor, which was a de-tuned Merlin without superchargers and with steel components replacing some aluminium ones) in a car called "The Beast". Originally it had a grille from a Rolls Royce, but after complaints from them he had to change it. According to his own account he once drove by a Porsche driver on the autobahn who then called Rolls Royce asking about their "new model". The Beast was once listed in the Guinness Book of Records as the world's most powerful road car. The engine came from a Boulton Paul Balliol training aircraft which would give 1,262 hp (941 kW) at 8,500 feet (2,600 m). No supercharger was fitted to the engine in car so it "only" delivered about 850 hp (630 kW). The chassis was custom made with a fibreglass body and used a General Motors TH400 automatic transmission. Australian Rod Hadfield of the Castlemaine Rod Shop built this: Final Objective" wikipedia is your friend

    6. Re:"hopefully copfree run" by TubeSteak · · Score: 2, Interesting

      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/37523/speed_camera_t est/

      The guys at Top Gear went to an airstrip to test the speed camera 'myth'.

      Long story short: In their very unscientific test, the British version of the Speed Camera did not go off when you're going ~170MPH. No Flash, no picture, nothing.

      I imagine a 1980's speed camera wasn't designed to capture very high speed objects.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    7. Re:"hopefully copfree run" by AaronLawrence · · Score: 1

      Doesn't sound quite so exciting now that the Bugatti Veyron is a "production" car with 1000 bhp.
      Of course that was 40 years ago, but still...

      --
      For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
    8. Re:"hopefully copfree run" by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

      "Doesn't sound quite so exciting now that the Bugatti Veyron is a "production" car with 1000 bhp."

      That's 1001bhp! Sheesh!

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    9. Re:"hopefully copfree run" by hughk · · Score: 1
      The car existed and was used to drag race in the UK. It was a kind of fake Rolls-Royce with nothing but the radiator grill and the engine being actually RR (the motor company and the aero engine being the same, way back when).

      I managed to see the engine close up. Yes it looked like a large aeroengine and it had the RR stamp so it could have been a Merlin.

      The car had license plates so it was probably street legal.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
    10. Re:"hopefully copfree run" by Tet · · Score: 1
      The car existed and was used to drag race in the UK.

      Speaking of UK drag racing, Ronnie Picardo has a dual engined jet powered Beetle that has regularly been out and about at Santa Pod raceway over the last few years. It has a normal petrol engine for low speed driving, and a rather large jet sticking out of the back. From memory, it's still road legal, as well. Thus this story is nothing that hasn't already been done some time ago...

      --
      "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
    11. Re:"hopefully copfree run" by hughk · · Score: 1
      A friend in the UK who used to rebuild cars into something different had an issue with the vehicle licensing authority because of sticking out bits front and back. Apparently when you get you car recertified for street use they look to see if their are bits that could cause damage/injury and will not pass the car unless you can demonstrate the thing is protected. I therefore can't understand how this guy managed to get a car with a jet engine poking out of the back through (even unlit) without building some kind of cage around it. Note that this guy's jet engine seems considerably larger profile than the US person described in the original article.

      Of course, if one is simply modding an existing car and you are arguably keeping the same road gear, then maybe you don't need to worry about reregistration.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
    12. Re:"hopefully copfree run" by The+Snowman · · Score: 2, Funny

      Shock and awe, dude, shock and awe. The cops will surrender peacefully and let him go about his business.

      --
      24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
    13. Re:"hopefully copfree run" by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      Did you notice that he is attempting to import a russian SAM for show? Great way to get you get yourself on the no fly list (2 SAMs and a MIG, actually).

      Maybe this should be under YRO, Privacy or some other category.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    14. Re:"hopefully copfree run" by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      That man is a real patriot! How else is he going to stop a plane that Al Qaeda hijacked?

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    15. Re:"hopefully copfree run" by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Sounds a bit like the Metülisator.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  12. Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    At least he didn't decide to suprise the owner with this upgrade, like this guy did...

  13. Painted on the Side by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Darwin Express"

  14. Compensating for something? by Excen · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's one thing to be tricking out a Honda Civic (ricer) or IROC (white trash), but adding a jet engine to a new Beetle in San Francisco is the tuner equivalent of Richard Simmons dancing in an Elton John music video.

    --
    "No beer until you finish your tequila!" -Leela's Dad
    1. Re:Compensating for something? by bigmaddog · · Score: 1

      It is indeed a huge and purty penis extension, but he put it on the wrong end of the carfor that... or did he?

      I actually have no idea what I'm insinuating here.

      --

      Even as you read this, your pants are strangling your loins! Aaa!

  15. This is CARBAGE.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is nothing NEW!! Jet engines all the time in TopGear..

    http://www.topgear.com/content/timetoburn/sections /carbage/pages/0412/

    1. Re:This is CARBAGE.. by x2A · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      You're nothing new, and neither was your post. Jeez you people can be boring.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    2. Re:This is CARBAGE.. by dutchct · · Score: 0
    3. Re:This is CARBAGE.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      total fucking idiot,
      where are you loser?

    4. Re:This is CARBAGE.. by carlvlad · · Score: 0

      Top Gear = Beyond 2000

  16. Military Equipment by Wellerite · · Score: 1

    The scary part of the story is the bit about Surface to Air Missiles. What are the chances do you think of it clearing customs in this world of Homeland Security?

    A year or two ago, Patrick, through his connections in the surplus military equipment world, found himself at a "secret, but now defunct air force base in Poland," one that had been used by Warsaw Pact forces during the Cold War. After the fall of the Berlin Wall and the disintegration of the Soviet Union, Soviet-era armaments began showing up on various black and not-so-black markets.

    The men running the Polish air force base were trying to sell Patrick an SA-2 missile. This is the ubiquitous surface-to-air missile used by the Soviet Union and nearly all its military allies. It was an SA-2 that shot down Francis Gary Powers' U-2 spy plane in 1960.

    Not only were the guys at the air base trying to sell Patrick an SA-2, "they were saying, 'you want a MiG 21 (fighter jet)? I'll sell you two tanks and a MiG.' " .

    "So they wanted $2,000 for the missile," Patrick said, "and I had a bottle of ouzo and after a while I got them down to a grand." He still hasn't got the 35-foot-long missile, but he does know what he'll do with it once it clears U.S. customs. (Good luck.)

    1. Re:Military Equipment by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Informative

      If it's properly demilitarized, he shouldn't have any problem.

      For things like missiles & rockets, the process involves removing any fuel/propellant and then doing something to the outside that permanently fucks it's flight characteristics. Usually a big notch in the nose, fins &/or compromising the rocket nozzles/jet engine.

      Any guidance electronics that come with your rocket or missile are another story. You might need a permit to own/buy/import them, assuming you can have them at all.

      You can buy all kinds of fun stuff, but the caveat is that it'll never work again. Unless you're diligent, in which case you can build yourself a fully functional attack helicopter or various other things by digging around in supposedly demilitarized scrap. The Army improperly throws away a lot of stuff.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:Military Equipment by DieByWire · · Score: 4, Interesting
      One of the most incredible stories of ex-military hardware making it into civilain hands was Darryl Greenamyer's F-104, built from parts scrounged all over.

      An ex-Lockheed test pilot, his goal was to set an absolute altitude record with it - zoom climb it to flame-out, and control the ballistic portion of the flight with reaction thrusters.

      After setting a low altitude speed record with it, but before the altitude attempt, Greenamyer had to punch out when one landing gear failed to extend. (You'd never survivve a gear up landing in an F-104.)

      I'd hoped to find a lot more info on it on google, but will have to settle for this: Greenamyer

      --
      Never shake hands with a man you meet in a fertility clinic.
    3. Re:Military Equipment by modecx · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Indeed, I know a guy that has a prototype exhaust bell off of some old ICBM rocket which is now inverted and half buried in the ground. Obviously, it's now serving as a very stylish planter for geraniums. It's all titanium, and to decommission it, they took a torch and put a few holes in the bell it self, and demolished the tubo pumps. Luckily, he knew enough about welding titanium to at least fix it cosmetically!

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    4. Re:Military Equipment by David+Nabbit · · Score: 1
      in which case you can build yourself a fully functional attack helicopter
      You never know when one of those might come in handy.
      --
      "Her idea of wit is nothing more than an incisive observation humorously phrased and delivered with impeccable timing."
    5. Re:Military Equipment by surprise_audit · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Whatever happened to that guy in New Zealand who was building a cruise missile from commonly available, completely non-military parts?? As I recall, he was talking about building the guidance system using parts bought on eBay for only a few hundred dollars. Last I heard, he was prohibited from launching the thing.

    6. Re:Military Equipment by topical_surfactant · · Score: 1

      Red Bull has a Cobra helicopter they use for promotional events. They bought it off of a Southern Californian who built it from military scrap, just as a previous poster mentioned. Apparently those suckers are a real problem to maintain.

    7. Re:Military Equipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember back in about 1988 when I was taking flight lessons at the local airport I was waiting for my instructor, and there on the front page of trade-a-plane was ... a flying Apache helicopter that some guy had cobbled together from pallets of surplus he had bought off the US government.

      This could be that, or maybe it's been done a few times by now. I don't know if he got hassled for it, but I think it's great.

    8. Re:Military Equipment by Jodka · · Score: 1

      If it's properly demilitarized, he shouldn't have any problem...the process involves removing any fuel/propellant and then doing something to the outside that permanently fucks it's flight characteristics.

      For real examples of how to permanently fuck flight characteristics look here.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une signature.
    9. Re:Military Equipment by modecx · · Score: 1

      Goddamned, that's a fucking crying shame. Demolish all that good stuff with a hammermill? *weeps* I'd park that F-14 out in my back yard, not a problem! Hell, I'd even start up a meuseum and charge admission!

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
  17. Fill 'er up by butterwise · · Score: 2, Funny

    This guy must be pretty confident the cost of gas will eventually come back down.

    --
    If a baby duck is a "duckling," why would anyone want to eat "dumplings?"
  18. The Video by FSWKU · · Score: 0, Troll

    The video is interesting, but could the narration be any worse?? That has to be the driest, most disinterested voice-over I've ever heard! I guess now we know why he writes for a newspaper instead of working as a TV reporter...

    --
    "So after all this, you make my case for me. To end this stalemate, you must die..."
  19. THE PAIN! THE FLAGRANT HOMOSEXUALITY! by AlexanderDitto · · Score: 1

    Oh God, it BURNS! It BURNS into my very SOUL!

    --
    No, Mr. Green. Communism is just a red herring.
  20. the real question... by blew_fantom · · Score: 2, Funny

    but can it fly? and can you imagine the MPG on that thing? it would probably make jumbo jet sized SUV's jealous!

    1. Re:the real question... by geobeck · · Score: 1
      ...can you imagine the MPG on that thing?

      You've got it backwards. You mean GPM. Seriously.

      --
      Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
    2. Re:the real question... by x2A · · Score: 1

      General Purpose Mouse? ;-)

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    3. Re:the real question... by blakestah · · Score: 1

      That's the problem. A friend of mine in high school in the 80s hot-rodded a beetle. It could crank well over 100 MPH. The problem, of course, is lift-off. The beetle had all the weight in the back, at 100 MPH the front wheels would bob up and down. The bubble-like shape of the beetle generates a LOT of aerodynamic lift.

      Now, the new Beetles weigh more and have the weight more in the front, but that sucker is going to take off somewhere between 100 and 180 MPH. My guess, based on high school, is that it tries to take off around 150 MPH.

      You would think someone who would invest $250,000 in modding his car would actually think about using a reasonable high-speed car shape for the mod...unless he was more interested in firing those tailpipes in the company parking lot than actually making a fast car.

  21. Turbonique by cirby · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Back in the 1960s, a company called Turbonique made (along with a rocket-powered turbocharger for "normal" engines), rocket engines for automobiles.

    One of these gadgets pushed a VW Beetle (the old, cool kind, not those new toys) to a 9.36 ET at 168 mph in the quarter mile.

    Later, someone built a rocket-powered go-kart which managed about 240 MPH...

    1. Re:Turbonique by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      That's nothing, I do about 2*pi*1AU / 365 * 24 = 66674mph on a regular basis.

      On a couch, watching TV.

    2. Re:Turbonique by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      Yep. Powered by Hydrogen Peroxide at torpedo fuel strengths. Bolted on back of a Halibrand race/custom diff for cars, iirc, think reaction engine only on go-karts though. I remember one person's complaint that at speeds over 150mph the front wheels of his kart tended to lift a bit.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    3. Re:Turbonique by Vox · · Score: 1

      And back in the mid 80's there was another one that did shows in 1/4 mile races en Mexico, racing against a Mack Truck that also had a rocket...I don't remember the times, but the damn things were fast and noisy...and those of us on the pits at the local track (the pits in Monterrey's speedway used to be right besides the 1/4 mile track) would feel very uncomfortable heat when they sped past.

      It was lots of fun :)

      On the other hand, the rocket in this VW is a small one, at least compared to the one that Manauto (the company that built the VW and truck that used to run here) used...the back half of the (old style) VW bug's roof was cut off and if you looked at the car face first, you'd see about...8 or 9 inches of the top of the turbine above the car.

      --
      Pain is the gift of the gods, and I'm the one they chose as their messanger...
  22. He still needs.... by daemonenwind · · Score: 4, Funny

    Spinners, HID-headlights and a massive wing spoiler to go with that fat chrome tip.

    Time to pimp das Auto! Amerikan engineering in da Haus, ja.

  23. This is what /. is really about by KarmaOverDogma · · Score: 5, Funny

    covering the most awesome truth-is-stranger-than-fiction stuff where every geek looks and says in a Keanu Reeves voice: "Whoa..."

    What a great article!

    --
    uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
    1. Re:This is what /. is really about by x2A · · Score: 1

      wow, somebody on slashdot with actual blood running through their veins, reading the other posts on this thread, I was starting to worry!

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
  24. Re:This was done almost 25 years ago... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  25. failed to load by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    failed to load...

  26. Sounds like some serious over-compensation... by Esion+Modnar · · Score: 4, Funny

    for everybody pointing and laughing at his "chick" car with built-in flower vase. Now it's a jet-propelled chick car.

    --

    They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
    1. Re:Sounds like some serious over-compensation... by Karma+Farmer · · Score: 1

      A VW Beetle is a chick car. It's an artsy-fartsy car, driven by graphics designers.

      Ford Mustangs are chick cars.

    2. Re:Sounds like some serious over-compensation... by brainboyz · · Score: 1

      The NEW mustangs are chick cars. A mid-late 60's Mustang with a 425 in it is NOT a chick car.

  27. More for rednecks by SpacePunk · · Score: 0

    wifebeater.org

    News for rednecks, stuff that doesn't matter.

  28. Oops by wile_e_wonka · · Score: 2, Funny

    Oops

  29. Punch buggy jet blue! by beoswulf · · Score: 4, Funny

    Me "Punch buggy blue!"
    gf "Oww! Where? I don't see it..."
    me "Too slow!"

    1. Re:Punch buggy jet blue! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When will people realize that saying "punch buggy" makes about as much sense as Chewbacca living on Endor? The term is "slug bug," which has both alliterative and assonant qualities.

      Really, it's not like purple nurples and titty twisters are called "grab nipples."

  30. How many gallons to the mile does this get? by istartedi · · Score: 0, Redundant

    How many gallons to the mile does this get? No, that's not a typo.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    1. Re:How many gallons to the mile does this get? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He says 15 in the video...

      I assume that is with the AB going

    2. Re:How many gallons to the mile does this get? by mgabrys_sf · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see his plumbing. I'm still trying to figure out the ground clearance on that thing with the fuel tank it would have.

  31. other way around by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

    by souping up his VW beetle with a jet engine,

    Shouldn't it be, "adding a VW-beetle to his jet engine"?

    1. Re:other way around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about the consequences of slowing down the Earth's rotation!? Nobody talks about the real problems anymore...

  32. Bypass that stupid streaming for the video by zephc · · Score: 1, Interesting
    --
    "I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
    1. Re:Bypass that stupid streaming for the video by courtarro · · Score: 1
    2. Re:Bypass that stupid streaming for the video by insane_machine · · Score: 0

      site doesn't work, link must have expired or they took it down, when they saw the bandwidth costs

  33. Its all good and fun... by Toxicgonzo · · Score: 3, Funny

    'till Ron Patrick hits a speed bump

    1. Re:Its all good and fun... by WoodieR · · Score: 1

      Moose?

      --
      Question Authority before IT questions You ...
    2. Re:Its all good and fun... by jazzman251 · · Score: 1

      'till Ron Patrick hits a speed bump
       
      or gets rear-ended

    3. Re:Its all good and fun... by MadUndergrad · · Score: 3, Funny

      Rear-ended? By what, a MiG?

    4. Re:Its all good and fun... by Aero · · Score: 1

      Slightly OT, but my girlfriend used to live in VA Beach, and some years back, there was a news story about a guy who had a hard time convincing his insurance company that a submarine had collided with his car.

      The car was parked on a pier at the sub base, and the sub driver overshot the mark a bit and went broadside into the pier, slightly mangling the car in the process.

      Needless to say, the claims adjuster on the phone didn't exactly buy his explanation of what had happened, and the Navy folks wouldn't let any pictures be taken, so he had to sit and wait there till the insurance company could send someone out to look in person.

      No word on exactly how the claim was settled. Must've been a fun phone conversation, though...

      Driver: My car was just involved in a collision.
      Adjuster: Can you describe the scene?
      Driver: The vehicle that hit me is about 300 feet long, black, and cigar-shaped...

      --
      We can believe in you for 3 minutes, but beyond that, even the King of All Cosmos can't be expected to wait.
  34. Guide to life by colmore · · Score: 4, Funny

    a partial guide to life:

    You can pretty much fuck around with your youth however you want. Dress crazy, sleep around, be poor, be rich, whatever. There comes a point -- let's say 30 -- when you need to get serious and start thinking about the future. I'm not talking about a job or investing or anything, I mean, do that stuff, but we're not covering that here. We're talking about identity and personality... who you are. There comes a time when reinventions of self are just tedious to your friends and family, so you need to pick a target for middle/old age, and then work, slowly, on gracefully transitioning from whoever you were at 29 into that guy.

    I think this is my guy.

    (idea cribbed somewhat from Vice magazine)

    --
    In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
  35. Jet engine on the Back of a Volkswagon? by interactive_civilian · · Score: 1

    Sounds like a very uncomfortable place.

    --
    "Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
    1. Re:Jet engine on the Back of a Volkswagon? by MadUndergrad · · Score: 1

      It appears that not enough people watch Mallrats. Least you made someone laugh.

  36. hasn't this been done before? by kertong · · Score: 1

    No, not the myth of the man strapping ICBMs to his impala.

    I've seen a couple videos floating about, of a jet turbine engine powered 2nd gen MR2. There was even one on ebay, according to this site at least: http://maisonbisson.com/blog/post/10679/

    1. Re:hasn't this been done before? by ultranova · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, not the myth of the man strapping ICBMs to his impala.

      They were JATO (Jet-Assisted Take-Off) rockets, not ICBMs (InterContinental Ballistic Missile).

      A JATO rocket is used to give additional thrust to an airplane so it reaches its takeoff speed faster and can thus rise from shorter runway. An ICBM is used to lift an atomic bomb into space and drop it to another continent from there.

      Just a little difference in size and engine power there ;).

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    2. Re:hasn't this been done before? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Yes, I find numerous references to the jet powered MR2 (which I swear I saw on /. years back), a jet powered Eclipse, and a host of others. You can find literally hundreds of T-58 boat conversions, and many, many cars. I don't know why this particular one warrants a mention on /., Maybe because it has fully half as many T-58s as the MR-2.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  37. Umm, this is a MONTH old... by drummerb0y · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Check some sources before posting old stuff Slashdot, pretty please? ;) http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/06/jet-powered-vw- bug-takes-to-the-street/ I'm sure a good number of your readers also read Engadget on a regular basis. They should've caught this already. Anyway....

  38. how did he get permision to do this? by majortom1981 · · Score: 1

    how did this person get permision to do this. The myth busters couldnt even get a jet engine for their project. Even with the firedepartment there and everything.

    1. Re:how did he get permision to do this? by jeff4747 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Mythbusters made the mistake of asking permission. Just skip that step, and you'll find you can do a whole lot of things.

    2. Re:how did he get permision to do this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Permission?!?!

      This is AMERICA, not Soviet China!

    3. Re:how did he get permision to do this? by nrlightfoot · · Score: 1

      The Mythbusters may get a fair amount of money to play around with, but they don't get a quater million dollars to spend on a single myth. I recently went to a lecture by the Mythbusters, and they mentioned that they thought they had only half finished that myth. They really want to recreate the results of the myth (car going airborne for about half a mile and crashing into a cliff at 300+ MPH), but they haven't been able to get the Discovery Channel to fork over enough money for that, yet...

      --
      what sig?
    4. Re:how did he get permision to do this? by TubeSteak · · Score: 1
      I kinda have these two conflicting principles:
      1. If you have to ask, you probably shouldn't do it.
      2. If you don't ask, they can't tell you no.

      If it's far enough out there (car + jet engine), the police won't know what to charge you with or they'll be impressed... and they won't even try to charge you.
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    5. Re:how did he get permision to do this? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      The Mythbusters did actually do the Rocket Car myth, using several commercially available model rocket engines and a remote controlled car.

    6. Re:how did he get permision to do this? by isecore · · Score: 1

      The difference is that the Mythbusters were trying to acquire military-grade JATO rockets. They're not jets - they're highpowered rocket boosters. The military kindly but firmly told them that no, they could not borrow a bunch of JATOs from them. Hence the 'busters went off and got regular old rockets instead, which worked according to pretty much the same principle as the JATOs do.

      There were no jet engines involved in their experiment, since the original myth stated that the dude hade strapped (you guessed it) JATO rocket boosters to his Impala.

      --
      I enjoy large posteriors and I cannot prevaricate.
    7. Re:how did he get permision to do this? by Niebieski · · Score: 1

      The Mythbusters made the mistake of asking permission. Just skip that step, and you'll find you can do a whole lot of things.

      There is that old saying that we should all put to good use: It's better to ask for forgiveness than permission.

    8. Re:how did he get permision to do this? by SSCGWLB · · Score: 1

      Sweet!! I would love to talk to those guys. Where did you get to talk to them?

      ~nate

  39. Nice reference to the spackle approach. by Inoshiro · · Score: 3, Informative

    "Instead of cut and try, cut and try, cut and try, like the hot rod guys do, you have to do a whole bunch of computer analysis before you build it," he said. "We did (computerized) structural analysis and we did stability analysis. And by God, you know what happens? It works! Duh."

    I have to agree with him regarding hot-rodders. A lot of people seem to think the way to solve a problem is to frob at it until you get something that works. All the Motorola phone hacking kids, Xbox homebrewers, and PSP kiddies seem to think that the spackle approach (throw things at the wall until something sticks) is the best way to solve problems. You know, rather than solving them by understanding them :)

    --
    --
    Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
    1. Re:Nice reference to the spackle approach. by TubeSteak · · Score: 1
      All the Motorola phone hacking kids, Xbox homebrewers, and PSP kiddies seem to think that the spackle approach is the best way to solve problems.
      Those are all things you can "frob at it until you get something that works" without dying in a fire.

      People who "frob" around with fire and/or explosives without knowing what they're doing often end up dead, disfigured, or missing digits/limbs.
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:Nice reference to the spackle approach. by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 1

      And yet they both call themselves Engineers...

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    3. Re:Nice reference to the spackle approach. by thomasa · · Score: 1

      (throw things at the wall until something sticks) is the best way to solve problems. You know, rather than solving them by understanding them :)

      Actually, that is how you get to understand the problem - by trying things. All the computer modeling in the world is just theory if you really don't understand it. If you really understand it enough to model it properly then it is probably not really a problem, just an exercise. - in my opinion. Please don't disparage throwing stuff at the wall. That is how a lot of inventions came about.

    4. Re:Nice reference to the spackle approach. by odyaws · · Score: 1
      solving them by understanding them
      I call this the principle of "Think, THEN do." I occasionally mentor groups of engineering students, and this is one of the hardest lessons to convey. Many experienced engineers, even "good" ones, struggle with this.
      --
      Still trying to think of a clever sig...
    5. Re:Nice reference to the spackle approach. by orielbean · · Score: 1

      But it sure is a great way to innovate and think outside the parameters of expectations... Look at those monster garage shows where they basically throw ideas at a wall and build stuff with their sophisticated fabricators... They certainly have to CAD a lot of the work there, but look how often it performs other than planned...That is half the fun of being a basement Dr. Frankenstein...

    6. Re:Nice reference to the spackle approach. by Embedded2004 · · Score: 1

      Good comment, for the most part...

      However, you examples were very poor. When reverse engineering something, it is often impossible to get it right the first time, without going through a few guesses on how the system works.

      When your designing the system yourself, it is obviously possible and ideal to understand the problem completely before beginnering.

  40. Brazil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the movie Brazil they had a Messerschmitt fitted with a jet engine. I'm sure it was real and actually worked. Yup.

    1. Re:Brazil by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So did the Luftwaffe. Your point was what?

      --
      Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
  41. also its fake by majortom1981 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    This is so fake. You wouldnt even have enough fuel to run it for a minute. I thought this was prooved fake on these very boards already.

  42. Turbonique history and old catalogs by switcha · · Score: 1

    Here's a very funny and well written article about Turbonique history and the insanty of rocket dragsters. Found via Coop's blog with a comment along the lines of "If this doesn't make you tight in the pants, I don't know what will."

    --
    You know what? ... A little club soda *did* get that out!
  43. That's Nothing by fm6 · · Score: 2, Informative

    There's a guy that sells motorcycles powered by helicopter turbines. Jay Leno has one.

    1. Re:That's Nothing by Barkmullz · · Score: 1


      That is nice and all; I still think this is way cooler.

      --
      Ronald said nothing. He flung himself from the room, flung himself upon his horse, and rode madly off in all directions.
    2. Re:That's Nothing by SSCGWLB · · Score: 1

      The problem is, you don't need a jet engine to very very fast on a motorcycle. I know of 6 production bikes that can do 180MPH+ stock, all but one costs less then 15k. Jet engines on a bike are a loud and messy way to commit suicide.

      ~nate

    3. Re:That's Nothing by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Jeez! That bike's chrome-coolness factor is certainly unsurpassed. And the stats for the engine boggle the mind: I once owned a pre-OPEC muscle car that had a smaller engine! But it's still a piston engine, so the technovibe is just not there.

    4. Re:That's Nothing by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Hey, our point of departure was a jet-powered VW! Practicality and safety are not relevent to this discussion!

  44. It would NOT be a speeding ticket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    He would get felony speeding, felony reckless driving, that kind of thing. He would be convicted of it. Any jury that reads this article and sees the arrogance of someone who thinks its reasonable and safe to take a jet-powered car on a public road up to 160mph would convict him. He could go to prison. He would lose his driving privileges for a year or more. He would lose his voting and gun owning rights for the rest of his life. I'm sure that cops who regularly patrol those roads will be aware of this article and will be looking out for this guy, hoping to score a felony speeding conviction on an arrogant rich guy.

    ------------
    California CCW reform

    1. Re:It would NOT be a speeding ticket by jimicus · · Score: 1

      Assuming, of course, that the police doing the catching are able to keep up with a jet-powered car.

    2. Re:It would NOT be a speeding ticket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They would use a turbine-powered helicopter. He would be in big big trouble. The Dukes of Hazard only works on TV.

    3. Re:It would NOT be a speeding ticket by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      No, they just have to radio in the street cleaning crew to pick up the debris around the roadblock.

    4. Re:It would NOT be a speeding ticket by justthinkit · · Score: 1
      Labiolingual trill
      [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowing_a_raspberry]

      By the way, how does one post a link associated with a word? It seems to require different code than what works in .SIGs.

      --
      I come here for the love
    5. Re:It would NOT be a speeding ticket by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1
      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
  45. Why not the 1967 Chevy Impala? by CodeBuster · · Score: 2, Funny

    The infamous Rocket Car story always specifies a late 1960s Chevy Impala as the pilot's first choice...

    "But despite all these oversights, the story did specify that the car was a 1967 Chevy Impala. I think the reason this detail is always supplied is because it's critical to make the listener think the test pilot at least looked cool when he flew into the cliff. You'll never hear someone tell a story about a guy in a rocket-powered K-car or a Volkswagen Beetle. It has to be a car that deserves to have a rocket attached to it."

    The Rocket Car Legend

    1. Re:Why not the 1967 Chevy Impala? by __aanonl8035 · · Score: 1

      I wish someone would investigate "the true rocket car story"
      about the rocket car story.
      Something about it just screams BS to me.

  46. Nothing new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Rover built a number (about 50 or so IIRC) of gas turbine cars in about the 60's or 70's. They were intended as a proof of concept prototype and were placed with customers for a trial. Not intended as a high performance vehicle. They worked but would have been too expensive to run and were a bit thirsty...for cheaper fuel than petrol, but it still didn't compute.
    Fully street legal...

  47. How about a missile silo? by Bushcat · · Score: 2, Informative

    Reading the article, it seems he wants to pop an ex-Polish SAM down a scale missile silo, so he can sit there at night watching the lid open and the rocket rise in some kind of son et lumiere armageddonette.

    I figure CHP pulling his volkswagon over will pale in comparison to the visitors he'll get about 10 minutes after the first satellite pass over his little display.

    If I remember (and I may be wrong in detail), when the silo outside Green Valley was decommissioned and turned into a tourist attraction, the decommissioned missile was hauled out, laid on its side and had a big chunk cut out to demonstrate to passing satellites that it was clearly non-flyable. Then it was popped back down the hole, the lid half-opened and huge concrete buffers placed across the rails to prevent the lid from opening fully.

  48. big deal by flogic42 · · Score: 1, Informative

    People routinely drive 160mph on the autobon in Germany. Many cars can do it.

    --
    Check out my women's designer clothing store.
    1. Re:big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yes, but can they claim such a ridicilously low MPG?

    2. Re:big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You miss the fact that most german cars (BMW, Audi, VW ... are doing it by default; Porsche of course doesn't) are locked at 250 kph (155 mph). You can unlock this, but then again it's not exactly common to own a car that could do 160 mph. Nonetheless I enjoy being able to legally go at 125 mph (which most cars can do). It really has to suck to live elsewhere when it comes to speed limits.

    3. Re:big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      160 MPH? That VW salesman wasn't doing his job - The Bug is already capable of 130 MPH from the factory. $225,000 for an extra 30 MPH seems a bit much. A fraction of that given to the right tuner could easily get him to 160. But the tailgater deterrent is a nice touch.

  49. 160 mph? by porkThreeWays · · Score: 1

    My biggest question is, how efficient is this for forward motion of the car. A 1400+ horsepower engine that propels the car to 160 mph seems rather inefficient. A lot of production cars can reach this speed. A c6 corvette can easily achieve this speed. Hell, many cars with at least 300 horsepower and a reasonable weight can go this fast.

    --
    If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
    1. Re:160 mph? by LiENUS · · Score: 1

      And how long does it take those cars to reach that speed?

    2. Re:160 mph? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1
      Hell, many cars with at least 300 horsepower and a reasonable weight can go this fast.
      Weight has nothing to do with it. It's about aerodynamics, mostly, and sometimes gearing. A 300 horsepower low-drag sports car is going to have a much higher top speed than a 300 horsepower pickup truck (assuming appropriate gearing), even if the sports car weighed more.
      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  50. Reference by Z34107 · · Score: 1

    Is there a bumper sticker that says: How do you like my driving? Dial 1-800-EAT-SHIT.

    For children posters who might not know, the this is a reference to the JATO urban legend

    --
    DATABASE WOW WOW
  51. What about the SF Gate? by eMartin · · Score: 1

    Hmm... don't you think the SF Gate should get that credit?

    Sure, Slashdot lets us know about the articles, but if you got this link in an email, would you credit the guy who sent it to you with covering the story?!?

    1. Re:What about the SF Gate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SF gate most certainly should get the credit. but what I mean is that I rely on /. to show me stuff like this so I can hear about from sources I may not normally read or know about.

      Have a Happy Friday

      K>D

  52. Rocket Car Debunked ?? by sfm · · Score: 1

    Several years back I found this text about the origins of the rocketcar story. While I don't know if it is true, I will say it is a very interesting read if you have a half hour or so. At the very least, it will change the way you think about the rocket car story.

    http://www.rocketcarstory.com/

  53. Old news. by bi_boy · · Score: 1

    I've been hearing about such a thing for a couple of years now I think. I prefer the jet-engined Toyota MR2 I saw on ebay a year ago myself.

    --
    Chicken fried butter sticks? Do ... do you use a fork? - Black Mage, 8-Bit Theater
  54. direct video link by stevetures · · Score: 2, Informative
    1. Re:direct video link by stevetures · · Score: 1
      Oops looks like I missed the original direct link. So here's a youtube feed

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSn2igZtuPA Steve

  55. Yup by Fei_Id · · Score: 1

    I remember that car before it was on ebay. There was a website out there dedicated to it at some point. Only reason this is news; is because it was reported in San Francisco with a more trendy (albiet, unreliable hunk of garbage) car. As long as its German!! Audi, VW, BMW, MB, we dont care! Electrical systems designed by an 8 year old be damned!!! That MR2 was pretty slick. I seem to remember a few other cars as well. There was also that one car back in the 60s that some certain automobile maker (now defunct iirc) made a few copies of.

  56. Jet-ta? by diggem · · Score: 2, Funny

    Why wouldn't he have put one of those in a Jetta? It seems much more appropriate to me.

  57. I heard this guy speak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in EE 203, 'the entrepreneurial engineer', a class at Stanford. It was pretty interesting, and I think that his company (while it's no google) is doing well enough that he can afford to spend 250k on putting a jet engine in "the backseat of a volkswagen"

  58. Thanks for the info. Some more by Flying+pig · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I worked for a while in the 80s for one of the companies that were involved in the original Merlin development. I believe there has been more than one Meteor powered car (I really wouldn't want a full Merlin which would make the jet powered VW look pretty wimpy.) Our R&D people were involved in tractor racing, and one of the competitors had a Merlin powered tractor. We, on the other hand, had a turbocharged Diesel. They came back from one weekend somewhat elated having beaten the Merlin. Apparently the Diesel had been running at 5.8 atmospheres boost - that's about 85PSI.

    So I am afraid this jet car is actually a bit pathetic. It's no more powerful than the (street legal, normally drivable) VW Bugatti, which costs about the same, and it is less powerful than a suitable modded tractor engine.

    What I took away from that company was an in-dept knowledge of how to produce a hardened engine management system, and a lifelong passion for Diesels. As our Technical Director used to say, and history has proved him right, with the exception of power to weight ratio there is absolutely no measure on which a Diesel cannot be made to out-perform every other type of combustion engine.

    --
    Pining for the fjords
    1. Re:Thanks for the info. Some more by surprise_audit · · Score: 1
      Very interesting! Given your last paragraph, perhaps you would be in a position to confirm something else I read. I think it was in "Motor Car" or something similar. They loaded up a diesel-engined Citroen AX with all the Lucas fuel-economy stuff they could find and did a road test. They claimed to get over 120 miles per imperial gallon of diesel. Is that really achievable??

      I think there was another article that talked about emissions, saying that a properly tuned diesel emits only CO2 and water vapor. If both of those are true, I should really be taking a serious look at diesel for my next vehicle...:)

    2. Re:Thanks for the info. Some more by the_hoser · · Score: 1

      How about sound? That's why the M1A2 is powered by a 1500hp turbine engine instead of a diesel engine. They didn't want to get noise complaints from neighboring countries when they were doing their military ops ;-) I also read on the good wiki that most of the ships currently in service to the US navy use GE gas turbines... kinda cool... LM2500 gas turbine puts off something like 20,000 SHP Crazy...

    3. Re:Thanks for the info. Some more by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 0, Troll

      As long as you change the requirements of speed, etc. a child's little red express wagon can get absolutely astounding gas mileage.

      Look! It has been pulled 20 feet by hand by a flatulent beer drinker. One teaspoon full of ethanol (amount in bottle of beer) and only one litre of methane fumes!

    4. Re:Thanks for the info. Some more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about powerband or absolute engine speed?

    5. Re:Thanks for the info. Some more by _bug_ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So I am afraid this jet car is actually a bit pathetic. It's no more powerful than the (street legal, normally drivable) VW Bugatti, which costs about the same, and it is less powerful than a suitable modded tractor engine.

      The Bugatti Veyron retails for over a million dollars. This guy paid the cost of a VW Beetle and 250g more. So we're looking at under $300k for the whole deal. He could build three and still have enough cash left over for a more sensible car, like a Porsche, with the $$ it'd take to buy a Veyron.

      Although I have to say I think the Bugatti would be a helluva lot more fun.

    6. Re:Thanks for the info. Some more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Citroen AX was a very small, light and aerodynamic machine. I would have though that it was quite possible to exceed 100mpg with one - standard specced ones could crack 80mpg. I know, my sister had (and crashed) one in the late '80s.

    7. Re:Thanks for the info. Some more by FeloniousPunk · · Score: 1

      So I am afraid this jet car is actually a bit pathetic. It's no more powerful than the (street legal, normally drivable) VW Bugatti, which costs about the same, and it is less powerful than a suitable modded tractor engine.

      Pathetic? The guy mounted a jet engine on the back of a VW Beetle. Jet engine. Beetle. Who cares how its performance stacks up with some prissy sports car or a hot rodded tractor? The jet powered Beetle transcends cool in ways the Bugatti never will.

      Wile E. Coyote would be proud.

      --
      I know this because Tyler knows this.
  59. Except that the Rovers had a transmission by Flying+pig · · Score: 1
    The turbine drove a gearbox and the wheels. This mod simply provides thrust.

    As for the attitude of the rest of British industry, I'm reminded of the memo that went out around British Aerospace to the effect that nobody was to have anything to do with that madman Richard Noble.

    _that_ Richard Noble. He of Thrusts 1 and 2, not apparently heard of by people who post on Slashdot.

    --
    Pining for the fjords
    1. Re:Except that the Rovers had a transmission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That only solves one of the two problems. Delivering power through a transmission to the wheels and then to the road is more effective and efficient than pushing air backwards in order to propel yourselves forward.

      But the other problem is that jet turbine engines don't idle very well, and don't spin up fast. In a car, you can go from idle to full revs and back in less than a second. You need that capability to accellerate, overtake, change gears, whatever. And of course a car needs to idle a lot (traffic jams, traffic lights) and even when cruising on the highway needs only something like 10-20% of its rated power. (About 20 HP is enough to *maintain* 60 MPH)

      In contrast, jet engines are horribly inefficient at idling - since they need to idle at relatively high RPM (the 13.000 RPM mentioned in the article) just to keep the combustion going. It takes them between five and ten seconds to go from idle to full revs (imagine the honking behind you at the traffic lights), and they're most efficient when running at 80-100% of their rated power.

      If we want to use jet turbine engines in our cars, we need to make major changes to the way we are driving now (maintaining constant speed throughout the journey is key) and the way our roads are laid out (wide bends). For cars, piston engines are still the best (optimal) solution, despite having about 50 (standard 4 cylinder) or more parts doing reciprocal motion all day long, 100s of times per second.

    2. Re:Except that the Rovers had a transmission by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Turbo-electric might be a solution. Trouble here is that you waste a lot of energy through the conversion process. Maybe a hybrid, but I suspect the issue is that the weight benefit is never sufficient to cover the loss of efficiency.

    3. Re:Except that the Rovers had a transmission by LiENUS · · Score: 1

      despite having about 50 (standard 4 cylinder) or more parts doing reciprocal motion all day long, 100s of times per second. woah man, what car do you drive? 3000 rpm (usually 75mph in a 4 cylinder) is only 50 revolutions per second (3000/60) even at 6000rpm (a quite high engine speed) you are only doing 100 revolutions per second. 100s of revolutions per second is 12,000 rpm... very few production vehicles turn that speed... in fact i can only thing of one car that holds that speed, the rx8 has a redline of around 10k rpm.

  60. Rocket Boy and G-Forces. by niktemadur · · Score: 1

    The Rocket Boy story may be a myth, but I can think of a reason why the Rocket Boy story may be even more farfetched.

    Consider a jet fighter designed to withstand afterburner forces and compare to any kind of car you care to consider, be it a 1967 Chevy Impala or not. If Rocket Boy weighted 175 pounds, which is more or less the average for a youngish adult US male, 8 G-Forces translates to the guy applying 1400 pounds of weight on the front seat.
    When a car is engineered, including front seat and seatbelt design, full-speed frontal crashes are a consideration, but not full-speed reverse crashes, and this is the kind of pressure Rocket Boy was applying to the inside of his vehicle, only stronger.

    In fact, I can also picture Rocket Boy's pants jamming in the seatbelt. My guess is that as soon as the acceleration crossed a certain threshold, the car seat would snap like a recliner sofa, so that a flailing Rocket Boy would slide out of his trousers, propelling backwards waist-naked to meet his destiny, leaving behind a triumphant brown streak along the backrest, part of the backseat, car trunk and beyond into the 8th dimension.

    --
    Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
    1. Re:Rocket Boy and G-Forces. by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      "but not full-speed reverse crashes"

      Cars have to withstand G's from either direction because you could hit
      something in front or something could hit you fast from behind. And in
      a normal car accident it can go well above 8Gs though admittedly this
      is only for a fraction of a section so how well the interior would withstand
      long term G is another matter.

    2. Re:Rocket Boy and G-Forces. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am an automotive safety engineer.

      Seats for passenger cars sold in the US have to comply with FMVSS 207/210 (49CFR571.207). This requires that the seat structure withstand a 373 N.m moment rearward.

      A 373 N.m moment isn't a lot.

    3. Re:Rocket Boy and G-Forces. by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      People actually survive a lot more than you'd think. Here is a good paper about the Stapp G-force tests of the 60's. They basically strapped people to a rocket-propelled railcar, and then decelerated with other rockets.

      The record from the tests was 83g's of deceleration experienced by a Captain Beeding. I think he suffered some temporary blindness and shock, but no permanent harm.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
  61. I'll admit I'm jealous... by mrjb · · Score: 1

    ...being able to spend 250 grand on a toy instead of on hungry people in Africa. I want one.

    --
    Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
  62. Re:Defensive driving - Too late..... by StarfishOne · · Score: 1

    And remember: respect is everything Objects in mirror are closer than they appear ;-)

  63. A VW Beetle! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why a Beetle? The guys got no style. He must be a Microsoft user.

  64. Excellent! Where can I get one.... by ladyKae · · Score: 0

    I could have an extra half hour in bed in the morning... Hmmmnnnn lovely! ;o)

    --

    Smile, it confuses people

  65. Has been done before (photo) by Mugros · · Score: 1

    http://www.solent-renegades.co.uk/images/shows/san tapod/easter_2005/photos/sh/beetle_jet_car_d.JPG I have seen this or a similar beetle at the NitrolympX (dragster event) in Germany. Nothing new.

  66. I want one of those by RafaelGCPP · · Score: 1

    ... and a bumper sticker saying "You honk, I toast you!!!"

    Man, that is insane!! Quarter million bucks?? Get seriuos, please...

    There will never be a match for how STUPID the mankind can be or, as I saw once in a poster: "Artificial Inteligence will never be a match for the natrual stupidity!"

    This kind of waste of money, man labor and time makes me really sick!

    --
    "There is always an easy solution to every human problem -- neat, plausible, and wrong."
    H. L. Mencken
    1. Re:I want one of those by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm..... your geek card has been revoked. please leave this address range and never come back under penalty of drive wipe.

  67. The camera thing works by Wudbaer · · Score: 1

    The camera thing really works. Last year some German TV show tested this on a German racing track to find out if it was just an Urban Myth or not (this is vital for us, as for Germans driving like hell in general and as fast as your car can go on the Autobahn is as much of a God given right as your guns for you Americans). It really works. You just have to go really really fast. IIRC it worked from 250 km/h onwards (no warranty) or something like that. This is really not too irrelevant if you have a larger/faster car typical for Germany: E.g. our measly company BMW 120d (the smallest line currently available but not a sports car) tops out at 235 km/h (tested by me certainly on the Autobahn). Even at that speed you still can get in trouble from guys in larger BMWs, Porsches or Benzes that want you out of their way. And at night if there is almost no traffic.... welllll...... *big smile*

    1. Re:The camera thing works by Crizp · · Score: 1

      It's a shame that more and more stretches of Autobahn are bogged-down with speed limits, though. However, they are not the same kind of limits as other countries, and as I came to realise driving at limit+20 is the default, even for cops :) And when you finally get a three-striked white circle, well it's fun to drive only to see some truly fantastic cars whizz by you.

      A friend gave me two points of advice before I went on my road-trip back in the day and that was "watch your back and front at all times" and "notice the warning blinkers. If you see them in front of you, slow down and turn yours on". Your wonderful tradition with signal upcoming queues and obstructions in this way saved my ass from a chain collision in one case. I've seen some people in Norway do this now, FSM knows I do.

      And the "watch your back" thing - while ~160-180 Km/h is usually a left-lane speed, you do want to keep an eye out for those fine German-made cars coming up behind you in ~250 Km/h. Be ready to move your ass out of the way before they have to break for you, which is really annoying. If they start flashing their lights you're usually already too late :)

  68. But will it go down a Ski-jump? by de+Siem · · Score: 2, Funny

    As the Top Gear people did with this Mini with 4 rockets in the boot: http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZnHsw66dz4A

    --
    Beating up people in little rooms, if you do it for a good reason you do it for a bad one.
  69. Title of the person behind the wheel by Knutsi · · Score: 1

    I guess when you start up this thing, your official title as the person behind the wheel of the vehicle goes like this:

    1.) You pedal, you are now officialy a "driver"
    2.) You push the little red button, you are now officially a "pilot"
    3.) You push the little red button a little too long, you are now officially a "satelite"

    Now if only the Moller SkyCard had one of these on the back. Never mind vertical takeoff and landing, I want to get the moon!

    . Knut ;)

  70. Oy vey, the physics, economy, and safety sucks! by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 3, Informative
    Nice project, but the article glosses over a few major problems with this idea:
    • This is a turboshaft engine. That means it puts out its intended power out a shaft, any thrust out the back is just incidental.. But in the VW installation, there's no way to couple this power to the wheels, so the 1,400 horsepower is just wasted.
    • A jet engine's thrust is least efficient at low speeds. Lots of velocity in the exhaust, but that's mostly wasted at anything less than jet plane speeds. The acceleration of this thing is unspecified, but I'd guess not much more than a fraction of a G.
    • Most of these older jet engines take a very looong time to reach 100% power, something like 20-35 seconds. Not suitable for impressive jack-rabbit-like starts. You'd basically have to jam on the brakes, hit the accelerator, and --wait-- 30 seconds for the power to build up. Not very impressive.
    • There's, ahem, a big safety problem for bystanders-- these early engines were not rated to contain their blades if something bad happens. if the engine intake ingests a small rock or loose bolt, the thing could disassemble in a hurry, with white-hot pieces of turbine blades heading out in all directions. Not a healthy environment to be standing around!
    • The rotational momentum of 10 compressor and one power turbine sections is going to be significant, and not in a good way. This car probably needs a very flat aqnd level and straight highway. Any bump is going to cause all kinds of gyroscopic precession around the center and axis of momentum, which is NOT a good thing.
    1. Re:Oy vey, the physics, economy, and safety sucks! by stud9920 · · Score: 1

      It's a turboshaft engine with afterburners. Granted, these are very inefficient, but they are also pretty powerful IIRC, and also don't need 20-35 seconds to start, as show in the video

    2. Re:Oy vey, the physics, economy, and safety sucks! by zerocool^ · · Score: 2, Informative


      It's a good thing you thought of all this stuff, and the Stanford Ph. D. holding owner of a firm called Engine Control and Monitoring didn't. Boy, you'd better call him before he goofs! Thank god for you!

      Everyone's an armchair expert. Also, RTFA, it says when he kicks in the engine, he first gets the car up to 90 miles an hour using the conventional engine in the front of the car.

      --
      sig?
    3. Re:Oy vey, the physics, economy, and safety sucks! by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 1
      >and the Stanford Ph. D.....

      I've worked alongside PhD's all my life. Just because someone has a PhD in field U doesnt mean he knows squat about field V. Just because someone runs business X doesnt mean he's competent in field Y. And a good 33% of the PhD's I've met have forgotten most everything they ever learned, or have no common sense.

      As just one example, this EE PhD brought his stereo in for repair-- "No left channel". I glanced at it and told him: "You have the balance control all the way to the right". The expression on his face was precious.

      >he first gets the car up to 90 miles an hour....

      That's still less than 20% of the speed of the exhaust gases. So the car is going to accelerate with about 20% of the potential exhaust energy, which itself is incidental. A *cool* idea, but mighty inefficient.

  71. I guess at 250grand by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    He isnt too worried about gas prices..

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  72. Perfect for the Ventura freeway by theonetruekeebler · · Score: 1
    It's a cryin' shame he can't take this out in traffic. 2,000 degree high-thrust exhaust at windshield level would solve the hell out of a tailgating problem.

    You need a bumper sticker that says, "If you can read this your windshield is about to melt."

    --
    This is not my sandwich.
  73. It's been done before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A long time ago, too. I don't remember exactly when or where I read about it (some hot rod mag) but it would have been late '60s or early '70s.

    They tried it out on a track. At some speed (IIRC and I probably don't, around 200mph) it became airborne and crashed.

    The VW bug design is an airfoil. TFA never mentioned if the guy ever turned the jet engine on, I'm guessing he hasn't.

    -mcgrew

  74. AdSense genius by odyaws · · Score: 1

    Google's ad placement algorithms are getting better and better. The page with the video had "Top New Beetle Prices" and "San Francisco Dentist" - I guess they know what the likely result of operating this monster is!

    --
    Still trying to think of a clever sig...
  75. Been done before on an old (Type 1) Beetle by FutureShoks · · Score: 2, Informative

    See the pictures here.

    --
    ___FutureShoks___
  76. Not very impressive. by Phanatic1a · · Score: 4, Informative

    I mean, come on. He doesn't have the engine actually hooked up to any gears to turn the wheels. He just has it mounted on the back of the car, and he's relying on the engine thrust to push the car along.

    Trouble is that that kind of engine isn't designed to do that. It's a T-58 engine, a turboshaft engine off of a helicopter. While the engine on a jet is designed to shoot lots of hot air out the back, producing thrust to drive the jet forward, turboshafts are designed to, well, turn a shaft, to turn a rotor blade. In other words, they're torquey, not thrusty, and helicopters don't go fast because of the engine exhaust, they go fast because of the rotor.

    I was looking to buy a (ex-Soviet) MiG 15 or MiG 17 jet engine.

    He'd have been far better off doing that. The engine off a MiG-17 develops 6,000 ft-lbs of thrust.

    I mean, look what kind of performance he gets with his 1500-horsepower jet engine:

    He said that a jet-boosted run will "pin the speedometer and that's at 140." He thinks that when it hits 160 mph -- he hasn't seen that ... yet -

    140? My 300-horsepower Mustang GT is perfectly capable of hitting 140, and would probably do 160 if a governor doesn't kick in. 1500-horsepower is the power of the gas turbine in an M-1 tank; if he had this thing hooked into the drive wheels, he'd go like a bat out of hell. But as it is, all he's doing is making a lot of noise.

    Which I mean is fun and all, but fundamentally, he doesn't have a jet-powered car. He's got a car with a jet engine in the trunk.

    1. Re:Not very impressive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, jealousy.

    2. Re:Not very impressive. by be-fan · · Score: 4, Informative

      Trouble is that that kind of engine isn't designed to do that. It's a T-58 engine, a turboshaft engine off of a helicopter. While the engine on a jet is designed to shoot lots of hot air out the back, producing thrust to drive the jet forward, turboshafts are designed to, well, turn a shaft, to turn a rotor blade. In other words, they're torquey, not thrusty, and helicopters don't go fast because of the engine exhaust, they go fast because of the rotor.

      In a more detailed article, they reported that he converted the engine to a turbojet by taking out the shaft turbine, the gearbox, and sticking in a nozzle. Since a turboshaft is just a turbojet with these extra components, it's quite a reasonable conversion.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    3. Re:Not very impressive. by Phanatic1a · · Score: 3, Informative

      Since a turboshaft is just a turbojet with these extra components

      No, that's a gross oversimplification. The bypass ratio of a high-thrust jet engine and that of a high-torque helicopter engine are entirely different, and you don't change that significantly with the described modifications. He's still got an engine designed to produce a lot of shaft horsepower, and you don't get a lot of thrust out of that just because you remove the shaft.

    4. Re:Not very impressive. by ThreeDeadTrolls · · Score: 1

      Sure, he could do that, if he wants his drive shaft exploding and going off like a frag grenade. But hey, im sure it would still be fun to watch.

    5. Re:Not very impressive. by deesine · · Score: 1
      Which I mean is fun and all, but fundamentally, he doesn't have a jet-powered car. He's got a car with a jet engine in the trunk.

      Ya, but it's still kewl.

      --
      damaged by dogma
    6. Re:Not very impressive. by jafac · · Score: 1

      I would be terrified going that fast in a beetle. Even a newbeetle. Not without some serious ground-effects and a spoiler. The aerodynamics of that car probably don't create a lot of useful downforce. Never mind whether the suspension, tires, and brakes can handle that kind of speed.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    7. Re:Not very impressive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      He's still got an engine designed to produce a lot of shaft horsepower, and you don't get a lot of thrust out of that just because you remove the shaft.

      That is true, but he was able to get all the thrust that he wanted out of it.

      As he points out, you don't want to go much over 140 MPH in a VW bug anyway, so adding perhaps 250 horsepower from the jet engine thrust and wasting the rest is a sensible and moderate approach. Maximizing efficiency and adding 1400 horsepower to a VW bug by connecting the shaft drive of that engine would be silly and juvenile.

    8. Re:Not very impressive. by be-fan · · Score: 1

      What does bypass ratio have to do with anything? Turboshafts don't have bypass ratios, because they don't have fans. Turbojets don't have bypass ratios either --- otherwise they'd be turbofans...

      You've got a point that the gas generator in a turboshaft and a turbojet are optimized for different things, but saying that a turboshaft is a turbojet with an extra turbine, a gearbox, and a shaft is a good first-order approximation. Indeed, many turboshafts (eg: RR AE1107C) share a common engine core with turbofans or turbojets (eg: RR AE3007).

      You've also got a point in that the highest thrust engines are super-high bypass turbofans like the GE90 or Trent 900, but that doesn't change the fact that turbojets are still designed to produce a lot of thrust. A turboshaft, properly converted to a turbojet, should also produce a lot of thrust (in the case of this engine, perhaps 1000+ lbs).

      YIAAAE (Yes, I am an aerospace engineer).

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
  77. ohhhh, snap! by everphilski · · Score: 1

    v-dub in the house, yah

  78. Re:VW Thunder ....Grooven? by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    Fortunately it won't be street legal to DRIVE. Maybe to PARK, but not to DRIVE on the public streets. But, if it is in motion and then is parked... and seen by an angry German couple, then...

    I'm sure they won't be saying farfegnugen, but if they ram his jet, they MIGHT hail, "FUKENGROOVEN!"

    If they kick the shit out of his car, they can say, "We gave it das BOOT!"

    (I lay periodic claim to those ounces of German blood in my veins...as I lay claim to the Ethiopian, French, Spanish, Native American, and any other lines in me to say that... Now, isn't THAT fukengrooven?!)

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  79. pictures here... by ManyLostPackets · · Score: 1

    pics
    http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/06/jet-powered-vw- bug-takes-to-the-street/

    I guess it gets it's air-intake from through the floor

  80. Nice to see... by pocketstheclown · · Score: 0

    Herbie the Love Bug finding new work. However is best perfromances were still his earlier thespian work.

  81. What an idiot by armyturtle · · Score: 1

    Big rolling fire balls in the parking lot - right next to the hazmat area. Fuckin' dumb ass.

    --
    Wherever you go, there you are. :D
  82. Been done? by TobyRush · · Score: 1

    I grew up in Los Alamos, NM, and someone there had an original beetle with some sort of aircraft engine attached integrated into the car's rear. I remember seeing them up at the Valle Grande and hearing them turn the thing on, though the car was stopped and for all I know they just did it for show, and never actually used the engine's thrust.

    This was in the early- to mid-80's. Anyone out there know any details? I assumed that if these guys were doing it, that there were other people around the country doing the same thing... but I guess it was Los Alamos after all...

    --
    Sam! If you will let me be,
    I will try them.
    You will see.
  83. That's nothing! by hullabalucination · · Score: 2, Funny
    I dropped a VW Beetle motor into my F/A-18 Hornet.

    It's kinda slow, though.

    * * * * * *

    You'll pay to know what you really think!
    --Bob

  84. You just want to brag about your car by soren100 · · Score: 1
    You cut off half of his quote just so you could say that you are cooler -- here's the half-quote with your response under it:

    He said that a jet-boosted run will "pin the speedometer and that's at 140." He thinks that when it hits 160 mph -- he hasn't seen that ... yet -

    140? My 300-horsepower Mustang GT is perfectly capable of hitting 140, and would probably do 160 if a governor doesn't kick in. 1500-horsepower is the power of the gas turbine in an M-1 tank; if he had this thing hooked into the drive wheels, he'd go like a bat out of hell. But as it is, all he's doing is making a lot of noise.


    Way to skip the second half of the quote to make an artificial point -- the full quote is:

    He said that a jet-boosted run will "pin the speedometer and that's at 140." He thinks that when it hits 160 mph -- he hasn't seen that ... yet -- the car will start lifting off the ground, but "the fun is not necessarily how fast you want to go. The fun is the sound of the thing. Just starting it up, it's like a (Boeing) 747 landing in your front yard."

    So his whole project is about doing something really cool and making a lot of noise. What's your point??

    The guy even says that he does not want to go any faster, says that it's not safe, says the fun is in the noise, and you have a post about how he should have done something different?

    I think your whole post is about "My Mustang is cooler, and I know more about jet engines and going fast than a Stanford Phd". If he had actually made a car that goes really fast, he would have had to modify the car a whole lot more (drivetrain, etc) to go to a speed that is aerodynamically unsafe when he doesn't want to go any faster. I had a BMW that went 120, and that was plenty fast for me. The car took off like a rocket at 105 when you punched, but 120 in a small sports car feels very very fast, and I had no desire to go any faster. This guy is going fast enough to have a lot of fun, puts out alot of fire and a lot of noise -- I think that's really cool.

    You're also ignoring the fact that this guy is an expert on cars:

    Patrick has had a lot of cars and he said that about five or six years ago he was getting pretty bored with the state of the hot-rodding car hobby in America.

    "I'd been building cars for a long time," he said. "Drag cars, American muscle cars. The last one was a big hemi engine in a 1965 Dodge Coronet. I wanted something of the extreme of the extreme of the extreme. I was looking to buy a (ex-Soviet) MiG 15 or MiG 17 jet engine. I finally decided on the T58.


    He probably decided on the T58 because he got all the noise and flames without getting a lot of unnecessary thrust and Darwinizing himself.
  85. More show than go by trailerparkcassanova · · Score: 1

    A T-58 is a turboshaft helicopter engine not a true jet engine. If it were me, I would have built a gas turbine-electric hybrid.

  86. Huh? by jshackney · · Score: 1

    I wonder how much a hot section inspection is going to cost?

    Since turbojets don't produce horsepower in the same sense that a recip. engine does, how much thrust is equivalent to approx. 1400 HP? I'm thinking that if this engine puts out somewhere in the neighborhood of 2000 lbs of thrust (maybe more) then terminal velocity for the Bug should be roughly 300 or more. I'm just guessing.

  87. Chrysler by trailerparkcassanova · · Score: 1

    One of our neighbors had one of these in the early '60s.

    http://www.allpar.com/mopar/turbine.html/

  88. obligatory quote by nih · · Score: 2, Funny

    woohoo! Herbie goes to SPACE!

    --
    I'm a rabbit startled by the headlights of life :(
  89. JP7 by The_Pey · · Score: 1

    I don't think that JP-7 jet fuel is going to be any cheaper than today's current cost for high octane unleaded.

    But still, it could be fun :)

    --
    Hmmm...
  90. Please... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Old, OLD fucking news- This was on Digg a month ago. So long, /.

  91. saw this a month ago on digg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...just saying.../. is sloooow. digg however is up to date

  92. Wow... I saw this 4 days ago on Fark by leprechaun92 · · Score: 0

    You guys are really getting behind the times...
    Maybe i should just start ripping off fark stories and posting them here

  93. Fast things! by AriaStar · · Score: 1

    "The purpose of this car is to have fun and be stupid," he says with a laugh. "This is entertainment. It's a toy, a toy for silly boys." LOL, yes, the only difference between men and boys is the cost of their toys! His company is a mile from where I work. I just looked it up. Oh, and BMWs run smooth at 140. So he could have saved himself the touble of souping up a bug. But, you know, when you have a spare quarter mill burning a hole in your pocket, why not? :)

  94. It's already been done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A jet engine in a VW Beetle was done a while back, mid-2004 if I remember rightly. It was a British guy called Ronnie Picardo who has a lot of history with British drag racing, in particular jet exhibition cars. It makes regular appearances at a drag strip in the UK, particularly at the VW enthusiast events. Here's a few pictures:

    http://www.santapod.co.uk/images/gallery/jet_beetl e2.jpg

    http://www.solent-renegades.co.uk/images/shows/san tapod/easter_2005/photos/m/beetle_jet_car.JPG

    http://www.slowcarclub.com/jet/beetle-jet.jpg

  95. Banzai's fast, I'll give him that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But one heat-seeking missile, and he's history!

  96. Re:VW Thunder ....Grooven? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

    "We gave it das BOOT!"
    We gave it the boat?

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  97. Yes, sorry, thanks for correction by Flying+pig · · Score: 1

    I was completely out on the Bugatti cost, you are correct. I was thinking of the cheapo Porsche.

    --
    Pining for the fjords
  98. Jay Leno by mrmeval · · Score: 1

    He's using a jet not a rocket. Jay Leno has a jet powered motorcycle.
    Yawn.

    --
    I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
  99. See comment by Flying+pig · · Score: 1
    I don't know what you mean by absolute engine speed; it's not a performance parameter. If you mean RPM, that is definitely nothing to do with performance except that from a transmision and wear point of view lower is better. If you mean mean piston speed, the same applies. The objective in engine design is to get the necessary performance from the lowest economic rpm.

    As for powerband, you need to compare like with like. To get a wide power band from a gas engine you need relatively low performance coupled with variable valve timing and probably a variable manifold. To achieve the same with a Diesel you need a variable vane turbocharger and an engine management system. Power band is relative, i.e. a power band of 1200 to 3600 rpm is wider than a power band of 3000 to 6000 rpm. The first one may only cover 2400 revs versus 3000, but it covers a 3 to 1 range of road speed versus 2 to 1.

    I should have perhaps clarified by pointing out that the meaning was not that a single representative Diesel could outperform every gas engine on every parameter. That would be utter nonsense. The meaning is that the largest IC engines are Diesel; the engines with the lowest fuel consumption per KWH are Diesel; it is possible to design an extremely compact high output Diesel engine that would outperform any gas engine on KW/cubic metre; it is possible to design Diesel engines with a flatter torque curve over a higher RPM ratio than any gas engine; it is possible to build a Diesel with a higher MP than any gas engine. However, it is possible to design a spark ignition engine which outperforms any Diesel on power to weight ratio, unless you include the very smallest model aircraft engines which are semi-Diesel (glow plug).

    The latest IC engine development may have given the lie to some of this, especially if you count in direct injection SI engines (which are hybrids, i.e.they compress air, mix fuel and then create a spark.) But the last I heard, direct injection SI engines weren't exactly taking over the world. As for the Wankel well, unfortunate name probably didn't help but nor did the oil consumption.

    --
    Pining for the fjords
  100. Not a beetle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's a bug.

  101. Re:VW Thunder ....Grooven? by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    A boat-load of boot. (Hmmm, that pun was really bad...)

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  102. Yaah by SonicSpike · · Score: 1

    Holding it down fer da Deutchland, yaaah!

    (did anyone else find that chick hot in a synthetic/industrial sort of way?) :-)

    --
    Libertas in infinitum
  103. It's been done by Ed+Avis · · Score: 1

    In the 1950s British manufacturer Rover produced some experimental (and street-legal) jet engine powered cars. See this contemporary news report. For some reason the British government, which had owned the patent on the jet engine, decided to give it to Rover.

    --
    -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com