Bluebird K7 Latest
Discussion
Equus said:
In fact, we have specific rules (4 and 7) that prohibit individual members sharing their own personal information - even if they want to - or from trying to determine the identity of others.
'Rule 4: Do not openly share personal information of your own or others (e.g. address, phone number or email address). Users that post requests for others personal details will be deleted. If you would like to communicate with another member privately, you may Private Message (PM) each other using the member profile page.'Perhaps not in a post but there are many profiles where people put their names and occupations, website etc.
When a discussion gets serious or contentious, it's helpful to know whether posters are (1) an expert in that field or (2) just another PHer, so that readers can weight accordingly. If someone has relevant/useful credentials, it's helpful to put them on the table, as it were.
Good afternoon Gentlemen.
I’m quite glad I started the thread although I must admit it wasn’t done so without a sense of trepidation, or consideration. It was certainly in my thoughts not to give the Mods another headache after myself watching all the others closed down. I never contributed on any of the old ones, although the subject has always been a big interest to me.
However I sensed the situation had changed considerably when it was official that the boat was to be handed back.
I thought I knew a little about this story, however there was so much that I didn’t know. A big thank you has to go to Equus and more recently Neil for their invaluable inputs which have been excellent reading.
I’m having a day off work on Friday, I must have a run up and see it.
I’m quite glad I started the thread although I must admit it wasn’t done so without a sense of trepidation, or consideration. It was certainly in my thoughts not to give the Mods another headache after myself watching all the others closed down. I never contributed on any of the old ones, although the subject has always been a big interest to me.
However I sensed the situation had changed considerably when it was official that the boat was to be handed back.
I thought I knew a little about this story, however there was so much that I didn’t know. A big thank you has to go to Equus and more recently Neil for their invaluable inputs which have been excellent reading.
I’m having a day off work on Friday, I must have a run up and see it.
Gary C said:
dhutch said:
Gary C said:
sheppane said:
1 At speeds in excess of 310mph, Bluebird K7 was only marginally stable.
No s
t SherlockIt did seem a bit of a obvious thing to point out
and after a nice bottle of red...
Adult mode back in command, no offence ment
Garry, You won’t be the first, and no s
t Mr Holmes - you won’t be the last that’s veered onto this forum after a few.I’ve done it myself a few times…
Maybe more actually?!
Sometimes it’s the perfect way to relax looking on here after a nice bottle of Red, or two to be perfectly honest!
Gary C said:
dhutch said:
Gary C said:
sheppane said:
1 At speeds in excess of 310mph, Bluebird K7 was only marginally stable.
No st SherlockIt did seem a bit of a obvious thing to point out
and after a nice bottle of red...
Adult mode back in command, no offence ment
He entered the measure distance at c. 285mph, continuing to accelerate and lifted just as he exited the measured km at 311mph. Average for the kilo 297.6mph. Some 1.5 seconds after leaving the kilo, Bluebird developed a significant nose-up trim (perhaps as much as 4° or more) and, at a speed
of some 310mph, the starboard sponson left the water. It remained clear for a period of 15 frames (0.63 seconds), and in that time Bluebird traveled some 136 metres before settling back with a series of shorter bounces. It is approximately 2.5 seconds before the craft re- established level trim. The engine flamed out at some point during this period. DC had experienced similar virtually airborne incidents before in 1956 and 57 at around 290 - 295mph, under its intermediate Beryl powered configuration. The team thought they had to a large part cured this tendency to pitch up on release of full power, but this illustrates that all that had been achieved was to marginally widen the safe operating envelope.
The only way of testing this was for Campbell to be a test pilot out on the lake. By January 4th 1967, he had been at Coniston for 9 odd weeks and was keen to take his chance when the conditions allowed. Time and money were running out. It is pure speculation, but If he had essayed a return run with a max speed of 310mph at the end of the kilo, and an entry of 300mph, he might just have got away with it. The peak of 328mph before the measured kilo sealed his fate.
K7 leaves the water on its starboard side as it exists measured kilo on 1st run
Edited by sheppane on Monday 15th April 18:22
Edited by sheppane on Monday 15th April 20:01
sheppane said:
I think what I'm getting at here is that Campbell was driving a prototype, with no computer simulations, and very few opportunities to run up to the his target gradually... The only way of testing this was for Campbell to be a test pilot out on the lake.
One of the things that makes the WWSR so difficult is that this is still the case, even today. You can wind-tunnel test and CFD-simulate aerodynamics, and you can tank test and CFD-simulate hydrodynamics, but they scale differently and nobody has come up with a way to CFD-simulate the way they interact with each other and an object operating at their interface, so it still really has to be done at full scale and full speed, in real life.Risking a pilot has been unnecessary for some time, mind you. I've repeatedly upset the hero-worshipers by pointing out that whether it's the LSR or WWSR, the driver's job is nothing that can't be done by a sack of potatoes and a Raspberry Pi, but for the fact that the governing bodies won't allow it.
The Americans ran Tempo Alcoa under radio control back in the 1950's (and just as well... she suffered a structural failure at 250mph and disintegrated).
I don’t think DC was foolhardy in any measure, I truly believe he took his own calculated risks based upon on his own experiences.
He was after all a ‘Test Pilot’.
This was the sixties after all. A very brave man.
When Andy Green pushed Thrust SSC and smashed the LSR back 1997, that vehicle would seem absolutely analogue in this day and age.
And it had a bit of data back then to consider for reference.
Nearly 30 years ago.
I think it makes you realise why these records are not attempted more often. Especially WSR.
DC was doing both records back then.
Incredible really.
He was after all a ‘Test Pilot’.
This was the sixties after all. A very brave man.
When Andy Green pushed Thrust SSC and smashed the LSR back 1997, that vehicle would seem absolutely analogue in this day and age.
And it had a bit of data back then to consider for reference.
Nearly 30 years ago.
I think it makes you realise why these records are not attempted more often. Especially WSR.
DC was doing both records back then.
Incredible really.
Jim H said:
I don’t think DC was foolhardy in any measure, I truly believe he took his own calculated risks based upon on his own experiences.
He was after all a ‘Test Pilot’.
This was the sixties after all. A very brave man.
When Andy Green pushed Thrust SSC and smashed the LSR back 1997, that vehicle would seem absolutely analogue in this day and age.
And it had a bit of data back then to consider for reference.
Nearly 30 years ago.
I think it makes you realise why these records are not attempted more often. Especially WSR.
DC was doing both records back then.
Incredible really.
100% agree. He knew the risks and carried on anyway. He was after all a ‘Test Pilot’.
This was the sixties after all. A very brave man.
When Andy Green pushed Thrust SSC and smashed the LSR back 1997, that vehicle would seem absolutely analogue in this day and age.
And it had a bit of data back then to consider for reference.
Nearly 30 years ago.
I think it makes you realise why these records are not attempted more often. Especially WSR.
DC was doing both records back then.
Incredible really.
Jim H said:
I don’t think DC was foolhardy in any measure, I truly believe he took his own calculated risks based upon on his own experiences.
He was after all a ‘Test Pilot’.
This was the sixties after all. A very brave man.
When Andy Green pushed Thrust SSC and smashed the LSR back 1997, that vehicle would seem absolutely analogue in this day and age.
And it had a bit of data back then to consider for reference.
Nearly 30 years ago.
I think it makes you realise why these records are not attempted more often. Especially WSR.
DC was doing both records back then.
Incredible really.
But DC was far from a test pilot.He was after all a ‘Test Pilot’.
This was the sixties after all. A very brave man.
When Andy Green pushed Thrust SSC and smashed the LSR back 1997, that vehicle would seem absolutely analogue in this day and age.
And it had a bit of data back then to consider for reference.
Nearly 30 years ago.
I think it makes you realise why these records are not attempted more often. Especially WSR.
DC was doing both records back then.
Incredible really.
Test pilots perform a carefully planned, incremental series of tests to validate the design & establish the safe operating envelope of the aircraft they are testing.
They are debriefed after each flight, the telemetry is examined, and that is used to plan the next series of tests.
This is not a criticism of DC.
Jim H said:
I think it makes you realise why these records are not attempted more often.
They're not attempted these days because nobody cares any more. They cost far too much and are no longer relevant. Today, flying to Mars would be more relevant or living on the moon. We simply don't need to go faster on land or water.
Donald Campbell died before we'd put a man on the moon. It was the end of a different era, there was about to be a supersonic passenger aircraft. Pushing 320mph on water was 'pedestrian' by comparison.
A very brave man, not the slightest bit of disrespect for him, but even then the world was moving on.
Jordie Barretts sock said:
They're not attempted these days because nobody cares any more. They cost far too much and are no longer relevant.
There are/were at least 4 people seriously trying, mind you:- Ken Warby and his son had a boat finished and in testing. Ken died last year, but I believe that his son intends to carry on. According to their Facebook page, they're booked to be back at Blowering Dam next month. Ken's loss must be a setback, but I still consider this one to stand a very real chance of success - it's basically an 'Evo' version of the boat that currently holds the record.
- Daniel Dehaemers from Belgium had a boat close to being ready to run, but unfortunately died of cancer.
- Nigel MacKnight's Quick
sinker, sorry, Qucksilver project has been plugging away for literally decades, but does seem to be making some progress (though he's been at it so long now that it's become something of a joke).
- Current LSR impresario Richard Noble is in the early stages of a project, though at Noble's age (he's 78, now), I'd be surprised if he lives long enough to see it through.
The two 'serious' UK contenders - Noble and MacKnight - suffer, in my opinion, by doing it the 'old school' way that Campbell did it, of trying to build a big, high-tech 'prestige' engineering solution... which requires shedloads of money and therefore major backing from industry, which as you suggest is difficult to come by these days.
Warby and Dehaemers pursued much more sensible, 'leaner' solutions, with smaller, simpler boats and engines... hence much more affordable/fundable.
Equus said:
Risking a pilot has been unnecessary for some time, mind you. I've repeatedly upset the hero-worshipers by pointing out that whether it's the LSR or WWSR, the driver's job is nothing that can't be done by a sack of potatoes and a Raspberry Pi, but for the fact that the governing bodies won't allow it.
The Americans ran Tempo Alcoa under radio control back in the 1950's (and just as well... she suffered a structural failure at 250mph and disintegrated).
Yeah, I can see the attraction of a remotely controlled full scale 'test' ahead of a live pilot taking the seat, as well as the fact that as said, times, expectations and desires have changed a huge amount in the intervening 60 year years.The Americans ran Tempo Alcoa under radio control back in the 1950's (and just as well... she suffered a structural failure at 250mph and disintegrated).
Yes there are a number of mid-low profile projects, but even the likes of bloodhound scc (and the tail of K7 work) don't capture the national level of interest the early speed record attempts did.
That's interesting, but also quite sad that they all seem to have been kicking it about for decades and nobody has heard of them.
It's sad to say, it's just not news anymore.
I bet if you asked any eleven year olds what the land and water speed records were, they couldn't tell you to within 100mph.
It's sad to say, it's just not news anymore.
I bet if you asked any eleven year olds what the land and water speed records were, they couldn't tell you to within 100mph.
sheppane said:
I think what I'm getting at here is that Campbell was driving a prototype, with no computer simulations, and very few opportunities to run up to the his target gradually. The circumstances of the day almost forced him to take a calculated risk too many. The first run was by no means perfect, as had previously been thought.
He entered the measure distance at c. 285mph, continuing to accelerate and lifted just as he exited the measured km at 311mph. Average for the kilo 297.6mph. Some 1.5 seconds after leaving the kilo, Bluebird developed a significant nose-up trim (perhaps as much as 4° or more) and, at a speed
of some 310mph, the starboard sponson left the water. It remained clear for a period of 15 frames (0.63 seconds), and in that time Bluebird traveled some 136 metres before settling back with a series of shorter bounces. It is approximately 2.5 seconds before the craft re- established level trim. The engine flamed out at some point during this period. DC had experienced similar virtually airborne incidents before in 1956 and 57 at around 290 - 295mph, under its intermediate Beryl powered configuration. The team thought they had to a large part cured this tendency to pitch up on release of full power, but this illustrates that all that had been achieved was to marginally widen the safe operating envelope.
The only way of testing this was for Campbell to be a test pilot out on the lake. By January 4th 1967, he had been at Coniston for 9 odd weeks and was keen to take his chance when the conditions allowed. Time and money were running out. It is pure speculation, but If he had essayed a return run with a max speed of 310mph at the end of the kilo, and an entry of 300mph, he might just have got away with it. The peak of 328mph before the measured kilo sealed his fate.
K7 leaves the water on its starboard side as it exists measured kilo on 1st run
I believe its against rules, but in a way it is surprising they didn't have a flap or two on the front that you could engage during deceleration. He entered the measure distance at c. 285mph, continuing to accelerate and lifted just as he exited the measured km at 311mph. Average for the kilo 297.6mph. Some 1.5 seconds after leaving the kilo, Bluebird developed a significant nose-up trim (perhaps as much as 4° or more) and, at a speed
of some 310mph, the starboard sponson left the water. It remained clear for a period of 15 frames (0.63 seconds), and in that time Bluebird traveled some 136 metres before settling back with a series of shorter bounces. It is approximately 2.5 seconds before the craft re- established level trim. The engine flamed out at some point during this period. DC had experienced similar virtually airborne incidents before in 1956 and 57 at around 290 - 295mph, under its intermediate Beryl powered configuration. The team thought they had to a large part cured this tendency to pitch up on release of full power, but this illustrates that all that had been achieved was to marginally widen the safe operating envelope.
The only way of testing this was for Campbell to be a test pilot out on the lake. By January 4th 1967, he had been at Coniston for 9 odd weeks and was keen to take his chance when the conditions allowed. Time and money were running out. It is pure speculation, but If he had essayed a return run with a max speed of 310mph at the end of the kilo, and an entry of 300mph, he might just have got away with it. The peak of 328mph before the measured kilo sealed his fate.
K7 leaves the water on its starboard side as it exists measured kilo on 1st run
dhutch said:
I believe its against rules, but in a way it is surprising they didn't have a flap or two on the front that you could engage during deceleration.
That was at least partly the intention of the water brake that they fitted for the '66/'67 attempt: apart from slowing the boat down, because it was 'pulling' (dragging) from a point on the transom that was below the CoG, it theoretically caused a nose-down moment in operation.It's a valid solution for a record breaker, where the thrust of the engine tends to pitch the nose down, so you only need an alternative when you kill the throttle... less so for an Unlimited circuit racer, where you don't necessarily want whatever is stopping your nose from pitching up to also slow the boat down, and you don't want to chew the water up more than necessary for the boats that are following you.
In fact, whereas controllable canards are now allowed on Unlimited hydros, water brakes ('devices that cause excessive spray') are specifically banned.
K7 had previously tried using a braking parachute, too, but it wasn't a great success (Arfon's Rain-x Challenger also used a drag chute - you can see it being deployed on the video I linked, above, but it was fired too late to save him).
Edited by Equus on Tuesday 16th April 11:34
Equus said:
AW111 said:
I assume there's some rule-based reason WSR craft aren't true hydrofoils?
Nope. You're welcome to use hydrofoils if you think you can make one work.A three-point hydroplane is half way to being an aeroplane!
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff