Bluebird K7 Latest
Discussion
PinkTornado said:
Equus said:
The reason K7 performed so 'well' on Bute (coming onto the plane very quickly and easily, where Campbell had really struggled back in '66) was because a lot of weight had been taken out of the (newly built) sponsons
From following the rebuild online (Before the details were all taken down and hidden) that's not quite right- the new sponsons are a carbon copy of the originals. Bill Smith claimed that the originals may have been filled with foam but that was the only difference.Original:
Raised front spar with blisters:
Final sponson profile (pictured at Dumbleyung, so still with Beryl engine and lacking the final tail fin and intake spray deflectors):
I stand to be corrected if you can provide evidence to the contrary, but my understanding is that the original final sponson form simply faired over the top of the earlier version, leaving much of the previous metalwork in place, but that the BBP restoration did not replicate this underlying, redundant metalwork.
At risk of mentioning he-who-shall-not-be-named, I'd take anything Billy said about authenticity of the rebuild with a pinch of salt... he made various statements running from 'it's 90% original material' to 'it's 90% new and so belongs to me', depending on what best suited his arguments at the time.
Edited to add:
Proof of the pudding:
Bluebird pre-crash at Coniston '66, floating static:
Coniston '66, again, with the famous sandbags in place (later replaced with lead ingots):
Another one from Coniston, with a very clear view of the waterline along the sponsons (albeit with ~90kg of Donald in the cockpit in all cases):
Bluebird post-BBP restoration, at Loch Fad, floating static:
Compare the horizontal row of rivets along the sponsons with the water line in each case, then see if you can keep a straight face while telling us that the restored boat was just as nose-heavy as she was in '66.
Of course, the whole nose section of the boat forward of the air intakes has been rebuilt, so it's probably not just the sponsons that have lost weight.
Edited by Equus on Saturday 10th February 20:24
I’ve also been following this since K7 was recovered (mainly by the BBP diaries that came out every so often).
I found the accounts of the research, and the work done both fascinating and very impressive. I did have a nagging doubt about how the wreck was brought back, with the jester’s hat and all that. I put this down to someone getting caught up in a moment of triumph, but as time went on, I changed my mind.
I called in at the Ruskin a couple of years back, and asked about K7, the person there was surprisingly up-beat about the whole thing, (obviously without disclosing anything about the proceedings) so maybe the case wasn’t too complex after all?
From where this all started, I’m still figuring out how and why I now find myself so pleased that it’s being taken away from the person who dedicated so much time and skill, so successfully, to this project. How could it end up like this? It’s crazy.
BTW was K7 put into some ‘neutral’ storage facility while the case was being decided?
I found the accounts of the research, and the work done both fascinating and very impressive. I did have a nagging doubt about how the wreck was brought back, with the jester’s hat and all that. I put this down to someone getting caught up in a moment of triumph, but as time went on, I changed my mind.
I called in at the Ruskin a couple of years back, and asked about K7, the person there was surprisingly up-beat about the whole thing, (obviously without disclosing anything about the proceedings) so maybe the case wasn’t too complex after all?
From where this all started, I’m still figuring out how and why I now find myself so pleased that it’s being taken away from the person who dedicated so much time and skill, so successfully, to this project. How could it end up like this? It’s crazy.
BTW was K7 put into some ‘neutral’ storage facility while the case was being decided?
Equus said:
I stand to be corrected if you can provide evidence to the contrary, but my understanding is that the original final sponson form simply faired over the top of the earlier version, leaving much of the previous metalwork in place, but that the BBP restoration did not replicate this underlying, redundant metalwork.
When the original sponsons were altered the fairings on top (above the horizontal line you point out) were all new; no old metal work was faired over. This is all there in the photographic record. Also, for the longest time a copy of the sponson drawing was on public show- what the BBP showed being built was identical.As for the rebuilt machine floating higher- no foam, no pilot, and no fuel load.
Edited by PinkTornado on Saturday 10th February 21:27
PinkTornado said:
When the original sponsons were altered the fairings on top (above the horizontal line you point out) were all new; no old metal work was faired over. This is all there in the photographic record. Also, for the longest time a copy of the sponson drawing was on public show- what the BBP showed being built was identical..
Good: then you will be able to direct us to the photos of the (original) sponsons under reconstruction, since the originals were destroyed after the crash?Because that's contrary to what I've heard.
Yes, I've seen the drawings. I've been in the business of drawing things for long enough to know that what comes out of the workshop frequently bears only a passing resemblence to what comes out of the drawing office.
like I said:
I stand to be corrected if you can provide evidence to the contrary
...but otherwise I'll continue to believe other evidence, including that of my own eyes, over any claims made by Mr Smith.PinkTornado said:
As for the rebuilt machine floating higher- no foam, no pilot, and no fuel load.
So, if the trim was the same, can you explain then why the boat planed so easily on Loch Fad, when Campbell had so much difficulty on Coniston?Not sure why I'm suddenly being lumped in with Smith and expected to answer for things...
This photo shows the boat in 1966, stripped ready for the Orpheus conversion. You can see that all that is underneath the sponson top fairings are the formers- no previous fairings or anything of that ilk.
This photo shows the boat in 1966, stripped ready for the Orpheus conversion. You can see that all that is underneath the sponson top fairings are the formers- no previous fairings or anything of that ilk.
Equus said:
So, if the trim was the same, can you explain then why the boat planed so easily on Loch Fad, when Campbell had so much difficulty on Coniston?
You seem determined to find controversy or something here? I have already answered that question- the reconfigured boat would not plane for Campbell until it was heavily weighted down at the back (sandbags, and then lead slabs) and then it planed a treat thereafter.Edited by PinkTornado on Saturday 10th February 22:49
PinkTornado said:
Not sure why I'm suddenly being lumped in with Smith and expected to answer for things...
Because you said you had the answers.I said that I would be happy to accept evidence to the contrary, and you have given it, thankyou!
On the basis of that photo, I'm happy to accept that the difference in trim ought not to be down to the sponsons' fabricated weight.
PinkTornado said:
You seem determined to find controversy or something here? I have already answered that question- the reconfigured boat would not plane for Campbell until it was heavily weighted down at the back (sandbags, and then lead slabs) and then it planed a treat thereafter.
It planed much better (ie. better than not at all) once ballasted, certainly, but still nothing like as easily as it did at Loch Fad.Neither do I accept that the difference in trim that is evident from the photos can be explained entirely by weight of fuel, foam and pilot, but that's not an observation you are obliged to defend.
Jim H said:
Fantastic photos Equus.
Now. Can we keep the thread on track.
To be fair to the posters above, any discussion about the construction of K7 is both interesting and relevant. I think the thread is on track.Now. Can we keep the thread on track.
I know next to nothing about K7 and all this stuff about weight, construction, engines etc is interesting to me.
Mont Blanc said:
Jim H said:
Fantastic photos Equus.
Now. Can we keep the thread on track.
To be fair to the posters above, any discussion about the construction of K7 is both interesting and relevant. I think the thread is on track.Now. Can we keep the thread on track.
Jim H said:
It's hardly possible to answer that question without mentioning or discussing he-who-shall-not-be-named.If we're limited to saying what a courageous and nice chap Campbell was (and unlike his father, he was both by all accounts), it will be a very short, very insipid thread.
Without wishing to be too pessimistic, do let's remember:
Finger's crossed.
dr_gn said:
...was K7 put into some ‘neutral’ storage facility while the case was being decided?
The answer to this one is that AFAIK, as this is written, K7 is still in BBP's hands in a shed in North Shields, so there's still scope for it all to go horribly wrong, even at this late stage.Finger's crossed.
Again folks, can we please try and keep this about the record boat, not dragging stuff that has very little to do with Bluebird into the conversation or the thread will simply be locked again for obvious reasons. Yes it adds background, but really it just makes it easier to close the thread, which should be about the future
Equus said:
Without wishing to be too pessimistic, do let's remember:
Finger's crossed.
I see.dr_gn said:
...was K7 put into some ‘neutral’ storage facility while the case was being decided?
The answer to this one is that AFAIK, as this is written, K7 is still in BBP's hands in a shed in North Shields, so there's still scope for it all to go horribly wrong, even at this late stage.Finger's crossed.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff