Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Another Contender For the Land Speed Record

Posted by kdawson on from the however-temporary dept.

We've been following developments with the British-led Bloodhound SSC, a jet car aiming to hit 1,000 mph in 2011 and shatter the land speed record. Now reader Thea Chard writes in about a rival project from Washington state, one aiming at 800 mph before the end of 2010 — still plenty fast enough to break the record. "For the past 12 years Ed Shadle, 68, Keith Zanghi, 55, and their 44-man team have been racing to break the world land speed record with the North American Eagle, a converted 1957 F-104 Starfighter 'turbojet car.' Although the team is rushing to beat out their biggest contender, Bloodhound SSC from Great Britain, whose team leader holds the previous land speed record and has secured much more financial support for the project, Shadle and Zanghi hope to run the Eagle at around 800 mph later this year, breaking the sound barrier and setting a new world record for fastest land vehicle."

85 comments

  1. Feels like cheating by the_other_chewey · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I still think that calling all those aircraft-that-just-don't-lift-off cars is cheating. Keeping them on
    the ground is in itself quite a feat, I don't deny that at all - but to be called a car, they should be
    propelled by their wheels' friction on the ground, not by jet engines and rockets.

    I'm actually much more impressed by something like the Dieselmax, even if it is much slower.

    1. Re:Feels like cheating by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 1

      I agree with you. Strapping a set of wheels on a rocket motor is pointless, even though the technical challenges are probably fantastic. In fact, generally speaking, breaking a record just for the sake of being in the Guinness book of records is pointless.

      I could understand if the technology they use to achieve the record could be reused some place else, like paving the way to faster high-speed trains for instance, but all they seem to do is apply clever design to make the body as non-lifting as possible, and use big fins to plant the thing firmly on the ground. Nothing earth-shattering, impressive though it may be.

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    2. Re:Feels like cheating by Thanshin · · Score: 1

      I don't deny that at all - but to be called a car, they should be
      propelled by their wheels' friction on the ground, not by jet engines and rockets.

      I agree but wouldn't be so precise, to allow for innovation.

      I'd say that it has to be propelled exclusively by interaction with the ground, not necessarily friction.

    3. Re:Feels like cheating by sznupi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...especially when contender is a modified jet fighter, not a vehicle built mostly from the ground up.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    4. Re:Feels like cheating by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is a record for wheel driven as well. There's room for both of these in the record books. And it's not like it's quite as simple as strapping a big thrust engine on the back of a roller skate so it's worth it as an exercise in engineering.

    5. Re:Feels like cheating by hughperkins · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Agreed.

      But even the Dieselmax can't start on its own: they get a tractor (!) to bring it up to 30mpg, before it can engage first gear.

      Which is fine and all, but personally I'd be more impressed with something that has that additional gear onboard. It does add weight, it will make the top speed slightly slower, and that is, I feel, why it is important.

    6. Re:Feels like cheating by Malc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And how is that different to say Formula 1? All the high speed cars have little to do with the real world where we have speed limits, imperfect road surfaces and require time to react to pedestrians as we come around blind corners.

    7. Re:Feels like cheating by stiggle · · Score: 4, Informative

      I used to follow the North American Eagle when they were originally developing their car, but they came across as whining kids complaining about the Brits coming over to break the records in the US and taking the technology back with them, which is odd seeing as Thrust SSC was on the desert at the same time as the Spirit of America team and shared stuff with them. (The SoA should have had the time slot for the run when SSC broke the record, but they let the Brits use it as their car was performing better and they had a chance at the record).

      Probably just complaining because the Thrust SSC data wasn't made available to them to copy - although the Bloodhound SSC data is being made publically available. The thing to remember about Bloodhound is that it is a project primarily to get kids interested in science & engineering again and breaking 1000mph is just an extra.

    8. Re:Feels like cheating by somersault · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's more fun watching fast cars navigate corners than watching fast cars go in a straight line. These cars are impressive, but not amazingly entertaining unless they crash. Actually I think the same of F1 when compared to stuff like Touring Cars, DTM and Rally Driving..

      --
      which is totally what she said
    9. Re:Feels like cheating by MrKaos · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I agree with you. Strapping a set of wheels on a rocket motor is pointless, even though the technical challenges are probably fantastic. In fact, generally speaking, breaking a record just for the sake of being in the Guinness book of records is pointless.

      Serco, those guys are just everywhere. The biggest company you've never heard of.

      I could understand if the technology they use to achieve the record could be reused some place else, like paving the way to faster high-speed trains for instance, but all they seem to do is apply clever design to make the body as non-lifting as possible, and use big fins to plant the thing firmly on the ground. Nothing earth-shattering, impressive though it may be.

      I think this is the first time they have tried putting the jet engine on top of the rocket motor, in a car. The variances in air pressure on the uneven ground may make the research into the control systems that keep the nose on the car worthwhile.

      Just sayin.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    10. Re:Feels like cheating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      We don't have a speed limit, our road surfaces are pretty good, and there are no pedestrians on the Autobahn.

    11. Re:Feels like cheating by Jurily · · Score: 1

      What I find amazing is how fast those drivers react when shit happens. Seeing someone lose control of their car and getting it back in a fraction of a second is well worth watching all the boring parts as well.

    12. Re:Feels like cheating by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ...the land speed record for a wheeled vehicle is 10,400 km/h (6,462 mph) ..... on rails, unmanned

      Railed vehicles can go much faster than free wheeled vehicles and the manned speed record was for a railed vehicle ... the only reason they stopped the manned tests was that they did not have a reason for them to be manned ...

      Like the steam car record and the diesel car record the "land speed record" is very artificial, many vehicles have gone faster on land, many have gone much faster manned above it ...

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    13. Re:Feels like cheating by somersault · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, they do tend to have traction control and possibly even active stability control in modern F1 cars. They have massive slick tyres too so easing back on the throttle will quickly give you your grip back if you get into a power-slide (and that's basically what traction control and stability control do when they detect things are going slightly squiffy).

      Counter-steering also becomes hard wired if you do enough sliding around in real life, or play enough computer games ;) I panicked and stomped on the brakes the first time I slid on snow last winter, but when I started to learn the limits of my car (only just got it last summer, it's the first car I've owned that has rear wheel drive), I had a lot of fun and learned to anticipate and provoke it then go with it rather than fighting it :) You react to things a lot more quickly if you're actually expecting them (undergrad Psych tutorials ftw).

      --
      which is totally what she said
    14. Re:Feels like cheating by richardablitt · · Score: 2, Informative

      Formula 1 hasn't had traction control for the past couple of years, although they've gone back to slick tyres in an attempt to bring back overtaking.

    15. Re:Feels like cheating by rossdee · · Score: 1

      "It's more fun watching fast cars navigate corners than watching fast cars go in a straight line."
      As long as the corners are different, right, left, hairpin, fast sweeper etc. Oval track racing is just as boring as watching cars go in a straight line.

      That is why I watch F1, and sportscars races, it would be nice to see more touring cars races from Europe, or Oz too.

    16. Re:Feels like cheating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whenever I buy a new car, when the first snow hits I take it out to an empty parking lot and learn the car's handling at the limits. My current car is the first one I haven't disabled the ABS on when it snows.

    17. Re:Feels like cheating by Drethon · · Score: 1

      Its called a test track, where you go to test theories with a minimal number of variables so you can later apply those theories to the real world. And Formula 1 may have perfect surfaces (?) and no blind corners (?) but have you seen an Indy road race lately? Some of those have nasty blind corners and terribly bumpy surfaces...

    18. Re:Feels like cheating by Drethon · · Score: 1

      I agree with that. This is one of the reasons why I like watching NASCAR as those cars have a better chance of recovery and some of those guys can really handle one of those heavy cars half way over the edge at 200MPH quite well.

    19. Re:Feels like cheating by OzPeter · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm actually much more impressed by something like the Dieselmax, even if it is much slower.

      I just read that and now I am impressed. 350mph, 2.7 tonne vehicle (yeah I'm mixing units) and a fuel tank size of 9 litres. And according to that article they only limited themselves to 350 as a safety precaution for the tires, and they weren't even in top gear!

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    20. Re:Feels like cheating by Custard+Horse · · Score: 1

      Formula 1 has a few road tracks with less than perfect road surfaces and Monaco is famous for being about as twisty and uppy and downy as you could possibly want it. Rubbish for overtaking but great fun when it rains.

      Generally, new tracks tend to be anodyne and now that the refuelling has been abolished, the new tracks are even less interesting.

      Getting back to the subject, how long before another person is killed attempting to break the record? I applaud pushing the boundaries of technology but is there any benefit to having a person onboard? Why not design a A.I. driver interface at the same time?

    21. Re:Feels like cheating by b4upoo · · Score: 0, Troll

      Maybe we should teach the kids that too fast is just too damn dangerous and there are better things to do.

    22. Re:Feels like cheating by Skynyrd · · Score: 3, Informative

      There are many different record categories recognized by various sanctioning bodies. The ones that would probably interest you the most are the "wheel driven" or "piston driven" records, and not the "overall fastest".

      Wheel driven records have been set by turbine engines, with the shaft running into a differential, and driving a set of wheels.
      Don Vesco has the record at 458.443

      The piston driven records are set by a car with one or more HUGE V-8 engines.
      Al Teague went 405.976 in one such creation.

      They are also over 300 mph slower than the the jet powered cars. There are no rocket powered cars in real competition for world records at the moment,

    23. Re:Feels like cheating by Skynyrd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree with you. Strapping a set of wheels on a rocket motor is pointless, even though the technical challenges are probably fantastic. In fact, generally speaking, breaking a record just for the sake of being in the Guinness book of records is pointless.

      So is playing baseball or watching a movie. Humans with extra time and money have hobbies. It could be anything from knitting to painting to riding bicycles to setting land speed records.

      Setting land speed records isn't your hobby, but it doesn't actually mean that it's "pointless".

    24. Re:Feels like cheating by markass530 · · Score: 1

      Could you post your source on that record?

    25. Re:Feels like cheating by Skynyrd · · Score: 1

      You are painting with a pretty wide brush.

      I've seen just about every type of racing on TV, and have seen in person (or participated in) in most forms of motorsports in the US, except NASCAR & the IRL. Land Speed Racing doesn't translate to TV at all. In person, however, it's a different experience. Certainly not for everybody, but there's nothing else like it.

    26. Re:Feels like cheating by Skynyrd · · Score: 1

      Good point. Let's just stay in mom's basement plugged into WoW.
      It's safe.

    27. Re:Feels like cheating by somersault · · Score: 1

      Yeah I was generalising. Seeing a landspeed record attempt in person would be a pretty awesome thing, but I think that over time it would lose its appeal quicker than something like touring car racing, unless they made the challenge a bit more interesting than "get across this flat plane as fast as you can".

      --
      which is totally what she said
    28. Re:Feels like cheating by DCFusor · · Score: 1

      I actually own and drive a car that does 200mph plus, stable -- but even the best interstate highway or local track isn't really up to that (even with some helpful cops clearing a path). I give out before the car does. One thing you gotta give these driver/pilots is they have large brass ones. Altitude is a pilot's friend! FYI, the car is a modded 2010 Camaro SS -- and it ain't you're daddies Camaro.

      --
      Why guess when you can know? Measure!
    29. Re:Feels like cheating by Tet · · Score: 2, Informative

      There are no rocket powered cars in real competition for world records at the moment,

      Apart from Bloodhound SSC, you mean? It has a jet engine, that's true. But that's only to take it up to 300mph or so. The rocket is needed to take it up to 1000mph. Although they're not looking to set any records, the Laffin-gas car is an interesting pure rocket car. They're only aiming for 400mph or so, but that's still pretty fast, particularly on their relatively small budget, and they have a nice setup that allows a fairly good degree of control. Not least, the ability to shut it off rather than having to wait until it runs out of fuel :-)

      --
      "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
    30. Re:Feels like cheating by OhHellWithIt · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but I don't think anything beats the World's Fastest Indian.

      --
      "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
    31. Re:Feels like cheating by jvillain · · Score: 1

      Actually you do get engineering transferring from F1 to the real world. Honda's VTEC came from their F1 engines and one of the Ferrari road cars are using the KERS system from their F1 cars. The paddle shifting system came from their F1 cars. The Carbon brakes found on some Vettes were originally optimised for auto use in F1. etc, etc.

    32. Re:Feels like cheating by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Actually because it's a 3-wheeler it's technically a motorcycle, one of the things about land speed records is there is something for everybody. If you strapped a weed-whacker engine to a street luge, there is probably a class for running it.

        425.050 MPH is the internal combustion engined, wheel driven record,
        458.196 MPH turbine engined, wheel driven,
        350.452 mph Diesel-powered speed record,
        321.834 mph Electric-powered speed record,
        152.2 mph Motor paced bicycle record,
        148.308 mph Steam-powered speed record,
        126.20 mph Wind-powered speed record,
          82.82 mph Human-powered speed record

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    33. Re:Feels like cheating by budgenator · · Score: 2, Informative

      Unmanned railed vehicle (rocket sled) 10,400 km/h (6,462 mph)

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    34. Re:Feels like cheating by turgid · · Score: 1

      NASCAR? Do they still have at least one fatality per race?

      --
      Stick Men
    35. Re:Feels like cheating by Drethon · · Score: 1

      Nah, they're down to about one fatality per decade. Their safety features since about 2000 have been pretty effective.

    36. Re:Feels like cheating by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      ...plus it's in the Guinness book of Records ...

      The reason it was unmanned is that no-one could survive the acceleration

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    37. Re:Feels like cheating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are many different record categories recognized by various sanctioning bodies. The ones that would probably interest you the most are the "wheel driven" or "piston driven" records, and not the "overall fastest".

      Wheel driven records have been set by turbine engines, with the shaft running into a differential, and driving a set of wheels.
      Don Vesco has the record at 458.443

      The piston driven records are set by a car with one or more HUGE V-8 engines.
      Al Teague went 405.976 in one such creation.

      They are also over 300 mph slower than the the jet powered cars. There are no rocket powered cars in real competition for world records at the moment,

      Rocket Car:

      Waldo Stokes is building a Rocket Car!
      The name is Sonic Wind or something.
      Google it, he is welding as we speak.

  2. New speed record last week - 293 km/h by buchner.johannes · · Score: 2, Interesting

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6311K220100402

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOGX73P8RqM

    --
    NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
  3. Not the same race by verloren · · Score: 2, Informative

    Bloodhound-SSC isn't trying to break the land speed record, it's trying to break 1,000mph (which will, incidentally, give it the land speed record). Clearly Eagle needs to beat Bloodhound to achieve their goal, but it doesn't really matter for what Bloodhound is doing whether Eagle succeeds or fails. Hence they're not really in the same race.

    1. Re:Not the same race by elvum · · Score: 1

      I think it's a bit more complicated than that - Bloodhound *is* direct competition for Eagle, but not necessarily vice-versa. So whether or not they're in the same race depends on your perspective...

    2. Re:Not the same race by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither of these are cars anyway. They're airplanes that fly really close to the ground. I don't think either one should hold any land speed records.

  4. An airplane? by Thanshin · · Score: 4, Funny

    They should've used an intercontinental ballistic missile.

    Just put it horizontal, add some wheels and sit on it.

    Screaming "YeeeeeHa!" as it starts is optional.

    The hat isn't.

  5. Obligatory JATO car reference by Alex+Belits · · Score: 3, Informative

    Apparently the origin of that whole thing.

    --
    Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  6. safety ? by ellenbee · · Score: 0

    I see this ending in tears

  7. Two for one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funny. In the previous article, (sunken sub image @ Wired), there's also a link to the Bloodhound...
    http://www.wired.co.uk/wired-magazine/archive/2010/05/start/grounded-submarine-photographed-with-sonar.aspx

  8. Andy Green by Rhodri+Mawr · · Score: 1

    ...holds the current record, not the previous record as incorrectly stated by kdawson.

    1. Re:Andy Green by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, the project leader is Richard Noble who does indeed hold the previous record.

      pedantry ftw!

  9. The real competition is the Aussies by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Insightful
    When the story about the Brits was run I pointed out *then* that there were 3 groups trying to break the land speed record. The Yanks will be doomed to be "also ran's" as the real competition to the Brits is the Aussies with the 1000+mph "car" Aussie Invader

    I'd plead for people to do *any* research on a story, but this is /. (and kdawson btw what is a "reaer", as mentioned in the summary. Is spell check too fucking hard now?)

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    1. Re:The real competition is the Aussies by pangu · · Score: 1

      Except the Yanks plan to break the record this year. So while they may not hold it for long, they will hold it assuming they succeed. I'd hardly call that being an "also ran".

  10. Safety. by w0mprat · · Score: 1

    Does the ejector seat work in the F-104? Would be logical to retain it. Even on a salt bed it's unlikely to survive a high speed crash.

    --
    After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
    1. Re:Safety. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The original ejector seat in the F-104 was designed to eject downward because of the high T tail. If you lost the engine on takeoff you had to roll it to survive ejection. Don't know if they changed that later.

    2. Re:Safety. by OzPeter · · Score: 2, Informative

      The original ejector seat in the F-104 was designed to eject downward because of the high T tail. If you lost the engine on takeoff you had to roll it to survive ejection. Don't know if they changed that later.

      According to this F-104 Ejection Seat the reason for firing downwards was because they didn't have powerful enough ejectors to go upwards (which would help clearing the tail) but later on when they were available then upwards egress was used.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    3. Re:Safety. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      According to this F-104 Ejection Seat the reason for firing downwards was because they didn't have powerful enough ejectors to go upwards (which would help clearing the tail) but later on when they were available then upwards egress was used.

      That still doesn't mean it's a zero-altitude design where the pilot can survive an ejection from that lack of height.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  11. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why can't people do something useful with their time like build a super fast train? At least we could use that technology to improve peoples lives. Speed records seem completelly pointless to me unless it can relate to everyday reality.

  12. Another world record, for self-hate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not just the "Land Speed Record". More generally, it's the "When I risk my life for nothing that shows I'm stupid record."

    1. Re:Another world record, for self-hate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just about sums up this scene from the movie The Darwin Awards Dumbass Rocket Car Man

  13. Tribute to a genius by kurt555gs · · Score: 2, Informative

    Remember, the aerodynamic shape of the F-104 was designed by Clarence "Kelly" Johnson with a slide rule. No computers at all. Actually he designed the whole thing in about a month without any computer modeling.

    I wonder what it would take now, to do what he did.

    Let's not forget some of Kelly Johnson's other little projects like the P-38 Lightning, and the SR-71.

    --
    * Carthago Delenda Est *
    1. Re:Tribute to a genius by Tx · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "I wonder what it would take now, to do what he did."

      To design a pointy tube with wings? Especially one that was a death trap (nicknamed the "Flying Coffin"), that Lockheed had to pay massive illegal bribes to get anyone to buy? I'm guessing there are harder things to do.

      --
      Oh no... it's the future.
    2. Re:Tribute to a genius by kimvette · · Score: 1

      I wonder what it would take now, to do what he did.

      Lobbyists, kickbacks, and of course, hundreds of dollars' worth of budget overruns and years added to the delivery date.

      That is of course, if the project goes well. ;)

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    3. Re:Tribute to a genius by R2.0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Regarding your first point, it should be noted that the postwar Luftwaffe was NOT the best air force out there, and was using the F-104 outside of it's original design intent - it was intended to be a high-speed, high-altitude interceptor, and not fly low altitude dogfights. The Canadians had some of the same problems. Other air forces had much better experiences with the plane.

      That being said, should the Germans have bought it? Probably not. But the bribes Lockheed gave at the time weren't illegal, as you state - the FCPA was passed after they took place.

      The F-104 was a pretty radical design which went counter to American design trends at the time. It was small, wickedly fast, and unforgiving, much like European sports cars of the era. But the US designs were trending toward larger and heavier, sacrificing maneuverability for protection and increasing speed by application of more power, similar to the 60's domestic musclecars. Witness the F-111, originally conceived as a fighter but it grew so heavy that it can only be used as a bomber/ground attack plane. It's small wonder the Italians seemed to love the F-104

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    4. Re:Tribute to a genius by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Remember, the aerodynamic shape of the F-104 was designed by Clarence "Kelly" Johnson with a slide rule. No computers at all. Actually he designed the whole thing in about a month without any computer modeling.

      So what? It was a *very* simple aircraft with a fairly undemanding set of performance specifications - go fast in a straight line, carry a couple of missiles, shoot down bombers. (Not to mention every other project of the day was built with slide rules and without computers or computer modeling.)
       

      I wonder what it would take now, to do what he did.

      Probably like designing a computer from that era, it could be done in a few days by a grad student on his laptop. But nobody would bother other than a grad student with time on his hands, because there really isn't much of a point to doing so.
       
      Don't get me wrong, Kelly Johnson was a very gifted engineer, but much of the 'cult' that surrounds him is because people rarely understand the context and that he worked in a very different era than today.

    5. Re:Tribute to a genius by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I wonder what it would take now, to do what he did.

      A proper education for our young engineers and scientists.

      --
      Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
    6. Re:Tribute to a genius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Old German Joke
      If you want a Star Fighter , buy an acre of land and wait.

      G for Germany

    7. Re:Tribute to a genius by turgid · · Score: 1

      Catch a falling Starfighter, put it in your pocket...

      --
      Stick Men
  14. hiiiiiii by aieedaain · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Nice post thanks for sharing. Massage

  15. I can't wait by XB-70 · · Score: 1
    Speed of sound: done!

    The next attempt will be the land speed records for getting to youtube to see brains spread across the desert. Fortunately, not a lot of brains will be involved.

    --
    *** Don't be dull.***
  16. Sound barrier? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ThrustSSC already did that.

    The way this article is worded, is that it didn't

  17. Cruise missile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With a cruise missile, it's better for, uh, cruising - cruising for chicks.

    It's got the fins and add some neon lights to it - bad ass!

    Now the muffler....how do you get one of those sheep farters that's so popular with the kids these days on the missile end?

  18. I wonder... by Mantis8 · · Score: 1

    If these guys have run any computer simulations showing how the car will handle when it breaks the sound barrier on the ground. At that speed, they better know what to expect.

  19. Choice of F-104 by JumboMessiah · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The choice of the F-104 is by no accident. It's low altitude performance is well known.

    Darryl Greenamyer's Red Baron F-104 did 998 mph (mach 1.30) officially and 1013 mph (mach 1.33) unofficially. At less than 300 ft, back in the '70's. The J79 has to be water/alcohol injected during runs like these, otherwise it will exceed it's maximum inlet operating temps.

    Say what you want about the F-104, but it was built to fly straight and fast, intercept and shoot down bombers. Another work or artfrom Kelly Johnson and company IMHO. Especially considering the timeframe.

  20. Metric by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

    1kmph doesn't sound like a record!

    1. Re:Metric by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      Indeed, records speeds are usually given in revolutions per minute.

  21. Let's hope they know what they're doing by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

    Sometimes experiments don't go as planned!

    1. Re:Let's hope they know what they're doing by franl · · Score: 1

      If my calculations are correct, when this baby hits eighty-eight miles per hour... you're gonna see some serious shit.

      Oh, wait. That was the Flux Capacitor not the Oscillation Overthruster. I always get those two confused.

  22. U2 by Peter+Simpson · · Score: 1

    Beautiful aircraft. Maybe *the* most beautiful.