Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Big Baby Jesus

Ford's possible 300HP AWD 2+2 sports coupe..

90 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Originally posted by Dylan_Michael

Actually, you have no clue what a rocket itself costs, and demonstrated. If all the development is free, all the labour done for free, then, it can be lowered to sub 100K, easy. Especially with everything mapped out like I have it.

 

And now, your not banned, not until you **** up.

well, it's still $100k, not exactly pocket change, i don't know how you expect to come up with that, but whatever...

 

 

 

 

you also don't have the power to ban people. So no use threatening...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did I take it the wrong way, or did I tell you to stop reminding me about those people who want me banned. Because we both know I could never be banned. You nor anyone else will ever have any justifiable reason to ban me, I have never even considered that it *might* happen. Simply because I follow the rules in here. What you have tried to do is substitute opinion for 'rule-breaking' and that just won't fly with the board. If that was the case I'm not the one who should be worried.

 

"Take it the wrong way",... boy I oughta...you need a role model!

 

If any airplane can do it, what about the F-16? Last time I checked they costed taxpayers 100 million dollars for each plane! Considering the journey to space and back is far greater a load than what an F-16 can handle, are you telling me you can build something better than an F-16 for under $100,000??? Dylan, if you are right, the Military has got a multi-million dollar contract waiting for you to sign, so they can boot Lockheed oughta there, since Lockheed has no idea what 'they' are doing.

 

Again, back to FORD's AWD car...

 

Yes I know what it costs to build a rocket. They sell them at Wal-mart in a fancy kit that even comes with a parachute. The cost about $19.95 *giggling*

...$20.48 if you buy the optional Green Army guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Big Baby Jesus
Originally posted by Bliggida

"Take it the wrong way",... boy I oughta...you need a role model!

 

If any airplane can do it, what about the F-16?  Last time I checked they costed taxpayers 100 million dollars for each plane!  Considering the journey to space and back is far greater a load than what an F-16 can handle, are you telling me you can build something better than an F-16 for under $100,000???  Dylan, if you are right, the Military has got a multi-million dollar contract waiting for you to sign, so they can boot Lockheed oughta there, since Lockheed has no idea what 'they' are doing.

 

Again, back to FORD's AWD car...

 

Yes I know what it costs to build a rocket.  They sell them at Wal-mart in a fancy kit that even comes with a parachute.  The cost about $19.95 *giggling*

...$20.48 if you buy the optional Green Army guy.

 

First, you should’ve quoted all of your role model comment, because it isn’t your material.

 

I find it funny you think Lockeed doesn’t know what they are doing. When there are in for a potentially Trillion+ dollar contract. Anyway, I would like to see you, or anyone you know do better.

 

Also define “better” when you are talking about a F16?… There are reasons for the price being as high as it is. It isn’t like they just put the plane together and there is no sophisticated state of the art electronics in side. Or like there wasn’t any money involved when they were designing of the aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know the role model line wasn't mine. But seeing that this is an auto forum, most of us, as you did BBJ already know what I was making the allusion to. Also, since I'm not being graded here, I didn't see the need to worry about plagarism.

 

As far as Lockheed not knowing what they are doing, it was an implication about the irony that Dylan does know what he's doing.

 

Better, in the sense that an F-16 is a very capable machine, to build something that can handle more stress than that specific airplane would cost more than the F-16. I mean, the shuttle would be a bargain at a few billion dollars.

 

Think about it. We aren't talking about your highschool science project made out of paper mache'.

 

What is fuel going to cost for a round trip like that? I imagine you'll be using rocket fuel? I don't think it runs a buck-ninteen for a gallon. I don't even want to think of the cost for dry fuel, yeesh.

 

Like I said, it could be done, in theory. But I would really like to see the price list for an independant to build a space reaching rocket that returns, and keep it under $100K. Fuel alone would be 100,000 dollars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait hold on, I'm a little slow or having been paying attention. But you want to build a rocket that goes up to space and back? Shiat!!! I don't know much on the subject but how can any airplane achieve this with enough fuel. An F-16 has enough thrust only to have a ceiling point at 100,000 feet which is about 200,000 feet short of leaving the atmosphere or whatever the hell they call it. Plus you need that material that can withstand the insanse temperatures with the aircraft leaves and enters the earth's orbit. I don't know how any aircraft can achieve this? I think their was only one the protype experimental plane called the X-15 (or X-16). It was launched from a B-52 at about 60,000 feet in the air with enough power it reached mach 7 and flew over 300,000 feet. Again I might have this all wrong but how can any airplane achieve this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Heavy...Dylan isn't building an airplane, he's building a rocket(ship).

 

NASA can't keep their own rockets from exploding, I don't think I am going to be Guinea pig for his flight.

 

Keep in mind though, he is only 18.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, the F16 is not the best jet, its the F22 Raptor/Lightning. And lockheed has been on the fall since the cancellation of Venturestar/X-33 program, but its still odd how they barely manage to dent Boeing's sales. Ive been around aviation and aircraft my whole life (I dedicated most of my life to learning to fly and build rockets through books), and lockheed will never be bigger than what McDonald Douglas. Its not going to happen with this market. As long as the 747's are made, it won't happen.

 

Actually, right now the design is rocket plane/swept wing glider. The common mistake (and you have shown in IMO) is thinking it takes superman to get to space. Well, maybe the Justice League, but not Superman. I don't care if it is feasible or not. To tell my grandkids I was in the race to set the first non-military person in space will be a dream. Its about the actual race..the actual moment..

 

Right now Eros is being redesigned and renamed in AutoCAD R13 and in my several cardboard models. I know a person out in N.C. that takes several "gliders" to high alt. (20-30miles) and releases them up there. Not many people do it, but I figure strap a rocket on one of those babies and hallejula...

 

Of course its mroe complex than that. right now im getting the correct angle of ascent and descent, and also calculating weight and fuel needs. The DaVinci project of canada is using a mere 10K lbs of thrust, which can be achieved by a rocket nozzle roughly 10" in diameter. So increasing it steadily provides great effects. Im still bouncing around the simpler Linear Aerospike idea, the only idea that survived Venturestar. It appears to be better in every way, except simplicity. You need higher powered pumps and smaller bell's to carry the fuel onto the actual plane of contact to be ignited..the system is incredibly complex in actual design, yet very simple in method.

 

The body would consist of aluminum all around, and most likely will be well ribbed. The body however has to be tough, and light, and safe, so thats going to be a challenge. We are positioning all the electronics up front, leaving pretty much everything flammable in the back.

 

Still, the most challenging part is getting money..yet something about teenagers shooting for space seems intriguing to many people..who knows..im trying it..and proud of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AWD is NOT more efficient than RWD and it DOES handle better.

AWD is not better for drag racing AT ALL because the car is not turning but accelerating and under accel. the weight is transfered to the back of the car. but when you are sliding around a turn in a RWD the sliding locked up reae tires have less rolling resistance than the still under-heavy-braking front wheels so the front wants to switch ends with the back, also known as spining out. In an AWD or even an FWD carthe front wheels are pulling the rear tires strate again, so you dont spin out. And as of the matter of Rwd being more fun and all that thats a matter of opinion and i read somones post about most super cars being AWD.... WRONG (hmm Mclaren F1, Ferrari f40,Lambo Diablo, viper ,corvette, Jag XJ220, all mid engine RWD AWD.....Porsche 911...uhhh...cant think of any other true supersports car all wheel drivers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by M3man

wtf, why couldn't it have 300?? Viper has 450, Z06 has 405....Mustang Cobra has 305 ?!

 

 

 

 

it'll probabaly have 400+ hp..

 

 

 

Road and Track has a feature on it. It looks slightly like the 95 GT90 show car, and it's supposed to embody the GT40s spirit. They say it'll be powered by a 6.0 liter V12...

 

I think they should make a car like the shelby cobra, which was the best handling car of the day with the most powerful engine of that time, a modern cobra with the most power you can get and great handling would be cool

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by killerbeeze

...i read somones post about most super cars being AWD.... WRONG (hmm Mclaren F1, Ferrari f40,Lambo Diablo, viper ,corvette, Jag XJ220, all mid engine RWD AWD.....Porsche 911...uhhh...cant think of any other true supersports car all wheel drivers...

 

Let's see...how about most Lamborghini Diablos which ARE AWD. There's also the Bugatti EB110 as well as the upcoming Veyron. There was the Ford RS2000 and the Nissan Skyline GTR and (not so much "supersports cars", whatever that may be) Subaru WRX and Mitusibishi Lancer EVO and the originally Audi Quattro (very high-performance at the time).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Hudson

 

Let's see...how about most Lamborghini Diablos which ARE AWD. There's also the Bugatti EB110 as well as the upcoming Veyron. There was the Ford RS2000 and the Nissan Skyline GTR and (not so much "supersports cars", whatever that may be) Subaru WRX and Mitusibishi Lancer EVO and the originally Audi Quattro (very high-performance at the time).

I have never seen an AWD lambo diablo and by super cars i mean the limited production kind, not cars you can buy from a dealership on the highway like the Lancer evo and audi quattro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
- Back to Top -

×
×
  • Create New...