Eisenhower tunnel anyone
#21
Re: Eisenhower tunnel anyone
I really don't remember, but I was trying to find something that talked about the power loss in modern (fuel-injected) engines. At the time I was skeptical, all the references I ran across either specifically talked about carbureted engines or were ambiguous.
#22
Re: Eisenhower tunnel anyone
After "Obviously you have none" we receive what you must believe constitutes manifest contrition in "OK, I was wrong" followed by instructions to re-read that poor excuse for an apology for bad manners. Or is it perhaps that you did not think that "Obviously you have none" was plain rude behaviour and that saying "OK, I was wrong" made it all go away?
Temujin
#23
Re: Eisenhower tunnel anyone
Dear Mr. Kite,
After "Obviously you have none" we receive what you must believe constitutes manifest contrition in "OK, I was wrong" followed by instructions to re-read that poor excuse for an apology for bad manners. Or is it perhaps that you did not think that "Obviously you have none" was plain rude behaviour and that saying "OK, I was wrong" made it all go away?
Temujin
After "Obviously you have none" we receive what you must believe constitutes manifest contrition in "OK, I was wrong" followed by instructions to re-read that poor excuse for an apology for bad manners. Or is it perhaps that you did not think that "Obviously you have none" was plain rude behaviour and that saying "OK, I was wrong" made it all go away?
Temujin
I think I'll find something more productive to do with my time.
#24
Re: Eisenhower tunnel anyone
Boy I can't believe we are still talking about this. Yes some people seemed to be getting a little upset in their writing, but frankly they were being prodded like cattle. At this point we have an answer and I can replicate Mr. Kites results. If anyone would like to do so, go back to the begining of the thread and look at the train of thought at any given point, and use appropriate search criteria for that time. Sure, looking back now we can modify our search and get more accurate results, but the statement stays the same.
Cars loose power at altitute like any other engine. Newer tech can offset that.
If you want to see something really sad, look for the people who talk about cars that should have less power but better mileage at altitute, and they base that on planes flying 300 plus miles per hour wanting to go their highest operating altitute for best mileage. They don't seem to realize there is a huge difference in a car with a little 60mph wind resistance, and a huge 'ol plane barraling through massive amounts of air. I suspect that a plane operating at 30k has more power than a stationary plane at full throttle. Surely 300/500mph of even "thin" wind has got to more than make up for the pressure lost...its natures turbo charger.
Well, I'm out of this thread. Everything that needs to have been said has been said.
Cars loose power at altitute like any other engine. Newer tech can offset that.
If you want to see something really sad, look for the people who talk about cars that should have less power but better mileage at altitute, and they base that on planes flying 300 plus miles per hour wanting to go their highest operating altitute for best mileage. They don't seem to realize there is a huge difference in a car with a little 60mph wind resistance, and a huge 'ol plane barraling through massive amounts of air. I suspect that a plane operating at 30k has more power than a stationary plane at full throttle. Surely 300/500mph of even "thin" wind has got to more than make up for the pressure lost...its natures turbo charger.
Well, I'm out of this thread. Everything that needs to have been said has been said.
Thread
Topic Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post