wow no kidding.... I have seen the that coupe and didn't know it was rear
engined.... Sorry I was paying attention to the body work.... that thing was
sure PRETTY.... Loved it... I guess the air intake was the box over the
Front glass? hmmm amazing the things I learn here....
Keith
----- Original Message -----
From: "tim cunha" <tfc1932@hotmail.com>
To: <bbutters@dmi.net>; <speedtimer@earthlink.net>;
<landspeedracer@email.msn.com>
Cc: <land-speed@autox.team.net>; <ddahlgren@snet.net>
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 5:53 PM
Subject: Re: Rear Engine Ts
> the jado-harvey alum coupe was a rear engined and well built 34 coupe.
what
> about chrissmans famous coupe, that was also rear engined. many of them
were
>
>
> >From: "The Butters Family" <bbutters@dmi.net>
> >Reply-To: "The Butters Family" <bbutters@dmi.net>
> >To: "Glen Barrett" <speedtimer@earthlink.net>, "John Beckett"
> ><landspeedracer@email.msn.com>
> >CC: <land-speed@autox.team.net>, "Dave Dahlgren" <ddahlgren@snet.net>
> >Subject: Re: Rear Engine Ts
> >Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 13:30:03 -0800
> >
> > There were apparently rear engine coupes also, A couple years ago at
> >the
> >Spokane swap meet there was a Body and frame, I think 34 Ford that was
> >obviously an old Lakes car. I think the almost legible # on the side was
> >555. Kvach
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: Glen Barrett <speedtimer@earthlink.net>
> >To: John Beckett <landspeedracer@email.msn.com>
> >Cc: <land-speed@autox.team.net>; Dave Dahlgren <ddahlgren@snet.net>
> >Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 11:17 AM
> >Subject: Re: Rear Engine Ts
> >
> >
> > > John
> > > The rear engine mod roadster I drove was at the first Bonneville meet
in
> >49.
> > > Several people were involved with the car over the years. Bob Fugatt
> >bought the
> > > car I believe in 1950. It was run at the lakes at Russetta and SCTA
> >meets
> >as
> > > well as on the salt.
> > >
> > > Some of the the names involved were Jack Stecker, Clark Cagle, Leroy
> >Newmeyer,
> > > Joe Maillard who I drove for in 1957 the only over 200 mph run the car
> >ever
> > > made. 217 mph and broke crank on the run. Leroy drove it to 193 mph a
> >few
> >years
> > > befor. We are the only two that never spun the car.
> > >
> > > I found the handling to be good when I let the car more or less pick
> >it's
> >own
> > > path within reason. The car had very slow steering so if the driver
was
> >paying
> > > attention it was easy to drive. I also run the car at the drags with
no
> > > problems. With a fuel flat head, a gas flat and a injected fuel
chrys.
> >Clark
> > > Cagle run it with an Ardun with some success. I also run the car on
the
> > > Riverside 1/2 mile with a flat head on gas and beat Jack Chrismans
> >hi-boy
> >with a
> > > speed of 141 mph.
> > >
> > > Today, with some safety changes I would get back in it today and make
a
> >pass.
> > > The car was donated to Jim Lattens Museum in San Diego by Bob Fugatts
> >son.In the
> > > fifties none on us knew a lot about aerodynamics, weight placement,
fast
> >and
> > > slow steering and getting the horsepower to the ground and keeping it
> >straight.
> > > The high boy roadsters probably spin as much or more then any other
car.
> > >
> > > Just my input on the rear engine roadsters.
> > > Glen (wish I had one)
> > >
> > > John Beckett wrote:
> > >
> > > > Putting the handling issue aside for a moment. From what I can
see
> >most
> > > > of the old rear engined T's of the 1950's lacked a great deal of
> >safety
> > > > equipment...roll bars for example. Doubt if there was much of a
> > > > bulkhead/firewall either. The list of dangerous factors can go on
and
> >on. No
> > > > wonder people got hurt in those things at that time.
> > > > Now granted there may be some magic speed at which these cars
> >become
> > > > unmanageable, but maybe not. With 50 years of improvement in
> >technology,
> > > > current rules allowing wings, and especially with today's
dramatically
> > > > improved safety designs I think that these cars can be as safe as
any
> >/MR
> > > > running now.
> > > >
> > > > John Beckett
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Dave Dahlgren" <ddahlgren@snet.net>
> > > > To: <land-speed@autox.team.net>
> > > > Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 11:44 AM
> > > > Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Re: Rear Engine Ts]]
> > > >
> > > > > I feel personally if you can run an old belly tank or new
> > > > > one for that matter with pretty much identical Cg and
> > > > > wheelbase and track and probably weight then what is the
> > > > > diff? there are loads of cars at bonneville with terrible
> > > > > aero that just beg to fly at some pretty modest speeds. I
> > > > > have yet to see anyone tell someone you could not run a
> > > > > certain body in a certain class because the aero was
> > > > > terrible. or have they and I just missed it. I have stood at
> > > > > the starting line looking at a few full body cars and
> > > > > thought to myself either the person driving is completely
> > > > > fearless, going for a "Darwin " award or just had no clue
> > > > > why airplanes fly..
> > > > > Dave Dahlgren
> > > > > ( no I won't cite examples as that would name names and i
> > > > > am not into that)
> > > > >
> > > > > "Clay, Dale" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, but the aerodynamics are quite different. To my eye, it
> >looks
> >like
> > > > > > you'd get rear lift from the turtle deck without a spoiler or
> >something.
> > > > > > You might be able to take care of that with a diffuser style
belly
> >pan
> > > > too.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Don't get me wrong, Dave ... I'm in favor of trying to bring
them
> >back.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Dave Dahlgren [mailto:ddahlgren@snet.net]
> > > > > > Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 9:22 AM
> > > > > > To: Clay, Dale
> > > > > > Cc: 'Phillip Landry'; Rick Yacoucci; land-speed@autox.team.net
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Re: Rear Engine Ts]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Which is drastically different than a belly tank in what
> > > > > > way? same aft CG same lack of a real good cage same short
> > > > > > wheelbase... so the difference is other than sheet metal?
> > > > > > visually remove the outer skin for these pics and what is
> > > > > > different that a little cage work would change. Sure looks
> > > > > > like the same car to me.
> > > > > > Dave
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Clay, Dale" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I was only referring to the safety issue.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: Dave Dahlgren [mailto:ddahlgren@snet.net]
> > > > > > > Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 8:51 AM
> > > > > > > To: Clay, Dale
> > > > > > > Cc: 'Phillip Landry'; Rick Yacoucci; land-speed@autox.team.net
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Re: Rear Engine Ts]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > and the difference between this and a belly tank is?
> > > > > > > Dave Dahlgren
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Clay, Dale" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Very cool. But you might have a bit of trouble getting
> >through
> >tech
> > > > > > > today.
> > > > > > > > Wouldn't want to get this one shiny side down! It would be
> >neat
> >if
> > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > could come back ...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dale
> > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > From: Phillip Landry [mailto:saltracer@netscape.net]
> > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 8:55 PM
> > > > > > > > To: Rick Yacoucci; land-speed@autox.team.net
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Re: Rear Engine Ts]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Rick,
> > > > > > > > this is scanned from the July 52 issue of Hot Rod. It's Fred
> > > > Carrillo's
> > > > > > > car
> > > > > > > > and the article states he ran 175. Phil
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=53220&a=6560596
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Rick Yacoucci" <TurboRick@TurboRick.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Anyone have any pictures or links to pictures of these Rear
> >Engined
> > > > T's?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Rick
>
> _________________________________________________________________
|