The Land and Water Speed Records Thread

[Life Saab Itch]

I thought this might be a good thread to start after chatting with chevronb37 in another thread.

The history of the land speed record is rich and varied with some very interesting machinery. The same goes for the water speed record. It would be quite a good place to discuss the Bluebird K7 restoration too.

[Life Saab Itch]

Here is the link to the Bluebird webpage.

The quality of the work is superb. Truely stunning.

http://www.bluebirdproject.com/Bluebirdproject/fra...

[Life Saab Itch]

I can't get on Wikipedia from my phone, but could someone post the list of land speed record holders and water speed record holders.

Who holds the current water speed record and how fast is it?

[Life Saab Itch]

dr_gn said:

Life Saab Itch said:

Who holds the current water speed record and how fast is it?

Ken Warby Spirit of Australia, 317.6 mph, 8/10/78

I would reccommend "Skimming the Surface" by Fred Harris. A concise history of men and machines that have contested the water speed record. It's a small leaflet type book I picked up in Ambleside. Also "The Bluebird Years" by Arthur Knowles. Read it in one go - very good book.

Donald Campbell was going faster than that when K7 flipped.

I have a brilliant book about Malcolm, Donald and the Bluebird story. I think it's by a guy called Steve Holter.

[Life Saab Itch]

DJC, I have a similar ambition to you. I remember a thread about Bluebird on here where (I think) Sam68 said that he had a design drawn up that was revolutionary and could be capable of 400mph. It sounded very interesting.

I would love to have a crack at it, I mean, if a copy of Bluebird was made from Carbon with some safety structures built in, surely it would beat the current WSR?

[Life Saab Itch]

Munter said:

Life Saab Itch said:

DJC, I have a similar ambition to you. I remember a thread about Bluebird on here where (I think) Sam68 said that he had a design drawn up that was revolutionary and could be capable of 400mph. It sounded very interesting.

I would love to have a crack at it, I mean, if a copy of Bluebird was made from Carbon with some safety structures built in, surely it would beat the current WSR?

What sort of speeds are these things hitting?

I would imagine that they would be lucky to get to half the WSR, so about 150ish. I am happy to be corrected though.

[Life Saab Itch]

The book I mentioned earlier is this:

Leap into Legend

Steve Holter

ISBN 1-85058-804-X

It is a superb read, highly recommended.

[Life Saab Itch]

Ok, as this seems to be a popular topic, would this be a good time to suggest a mini-PH meet when they get Bluebird running again at Coniston?

I was planning on making the trip anyway...

[Life Saab Itch]

IforB said:

FourWheelDrift said:

dr_gn said:

chevronb37 said:

George Eyston's Thunderbolt. The biggest, heaviest, most ridiculous LSR car of them all.

Surely Thrust SSC is bigger and heavier than Eyston's Thunderbolt?

Not sure myself, SSC is big but so was Thunderbolt add the industrial engineering of the time and it would be very heavy as well.

Dimensions wise SSC is probably longer and wider but in terms of overall mass Thunderbolt might have the edge.

According to Wiki, Thrust SSC weighed in at 10 tonnes, whereas Thunderbolt was a mere 7...

Both are/were monsters though!

Excellent thread BTW.

I know that it's not going to be a 30% difference, but are we talking tons, tonns or tonnes for Thunderbolt?

I can't imagine that they used tonnes in the '30s.

[Life Saab Itch]

DJC said:

Im always wary of "revolutionary" designs, even from within inside the industry because they are always always always an absolute bh to actually develop. There are sound principle and you dont need to be too revolutionary with the current hull knowledge. The aero work is where Im more interested as its keep the boat on the surface and not a flying deathrap that Id want to concentrate on. I can line up any number of RR/AEC engine/FADECs to provide more than enough grunt for the speeds needed.

I have often thought that some kind of (maybe active, maybe human controlled) aero would be needed, even if it was just trim flaps on the front and rear to try and prevent a flip.

The cockpit could be made so much safer now though...

It would probably be prudent to involve a Formula One team with that unless you had the experience yourself with deformable and non-deformable structures.

I have often wondered why the planing shoes were on the inside of the sponsons on Bluebird, I would have thought that the outside would provide a more stable footprint, not that that was a problem as DC seemed to be able to make the 180 degree turns on Coniston at speed.

Would an ejector seat be prudent?

[Life Saab Itch]

Tyre Smoke said:

Life Saab Itch said:

Would an ejector seat be prudent?

Wouldn't have helped DC, he was airborne and flipping backwards when he applied the water brake, so quick was the flip. There wouldn't have been time.

I don't know about that, he was at 45 degrees for about 2 seconds before it properly flipped. He had time to radio back to the team about it. If he had had the option, I think he might have taken it.

[Life Saab Itch]

dr_gn said:

Tyre Smoke said:

Life Saab Itch said:

Tyre Smoke said:

Life Saab Itch said:

Would an ejector seat be prudent?

Wouldn't have helped DC, he was airborne and flipping backwards when he applied the water brake, so quick was the flip. There wouldn't have been time.

I don't know about that, he was at 45 degrees for about 2 seconds before it properly flipped. He had time to radio back to the team about it. If he had had the option, I think he might have taken it.

"I've gone! Unghhh" is all he had time to say. He applied the water brake when he realised what was happening, but the speed of the accident meant this was already too late as he was in the air. No time to eject safely.

footage with radio

There is a good fractional second sequence of events in the current diary entry here:

http://www.bluebirdproject.com/Bluebirdproject/fra...

Bluebird website said:

5.21 As a precursor to her final flight, the bows of Bluebird are now out of the water. She continued in this attitude for about 2 seconds before the air final got under her and she left the water for the last time. (Again the speed should be about 10mph faster)

[Life Saab Itch]

For a bit of history which is happening as we type and read, here is the Bloodhound SSC website.

http://www.bloodhoundssc.com/

[Life Saab Itch]

dr_gn said:

Life Saab Itch said:

DJC said:

Im always wary of "revolutionary" designs, even from within inside the industry because they are always always always an absolute bh to actually develop. There are sound principle and you dont need to be too revolutionary with the current hull knowledge. The aero work is where Im more interested as its keep the boat on the surface and not a flying deathrap that Id want to concentrate on. I can line up any number of RR/AEC engine/FADECs to provide more than enough grunt for the speeds needed.

I have often wondered why the planing shoes were on the inside of the sponsons on Bluebird, I would have thought that the outside would provide a more stable footprint, not that that was a problem as DC seemed to be able to make the 180 degree turns on Coniston at speed.

Wouldn't have made much difference. A line drawn between each sponson planing shoe and transom of the hull form two roll axes (around which the boat 'tramped'). Because these axes are angled to an apex at the rear of the boat, any roll about these axes also produces pitch, which, at a critical value, caused the boat to flip due to the air getting under the hull. In addition, the engine thrust also played a part because the thrust line was quite high, and this to an extent countered the pitch induced by tramping. An engine failure (or sudden closing of the throttle) removed this additional stabiling force and made matters even worse. The water brake on the other hand caused a pitch down moment. In other words, engine failure or closing the throttle at speed *before* deploying the water brake was extremely dangerous.

If K-7 had been a four point design rather than three, or if the sponsons had been at the rear, it would have been far less prone to these effects.

That is a very interesting post.

Could gyroscopes help stabilise the vessel?

Without reading through the Bluebird website to find the right part, did the air intakes collapse before or after impact? I know that they were in a mess, but I'm not sure whether it was because of the impact. I remember seeing something about the engine not producing thrust when the craft was halfway through flipping, because of the lack of disturbance on the water on the film footage. The water brake was applied though. That was one of the first discoveries of the wreckage.

[Life Saab Itch]

Dr_gn, if you were to design a WSR capable craft, do I take it you would have either a single plane at the front and two at the back, or four planes?

How much extra resistance would an extra plane create? The front sponsons on Bluebird had blades that it rode on, did it have a single blade at the rear or something different.

I'll go and dig out my Bluebird books.

This thread has got me sketching. For some reason, I'm designing a two person craft...

[Life Saab Itch]

DJC said:

There was a reason I said initially that my emphasis was more on the aeros.

The CFD for the hull design isnt a major issue really, the principles are well understood and relatively easy to apply. I can think of 3 designs off the top of my head which would satisfy the hydro side of things, esp combined with a decent propulsion side. Its all on the aeros and control system side.

To follow that, without significant "gifts" or grants, the control systems side would be prohibitively expensive.

With the systems (if I am following the discussion in the right direfction) that you are talking about, you are effectively designing a small aircraft that happens to plane on water.

The speeds we are talking about, we are probably somewhat above Cessna technology levels.

[Life Saab Itch]

yoof full chav said:

DJC said:

Life Saab Itch said:

DJC said:

There was a reason I said initially that my emphasis was more on the aeros.

The CFD for the hull design isnt a major issue really, the principles are well understood and relatively easy to apply. I can think of 3 designs off the top of my head which would satisfy the hydro side of things, esp combined with a decent propulsion side. Its all on the aeros and control system side.

To follow that, without significant "gifts" or grants, the control systems side would be prohibitively expensive.

With the systems (if I am following the discussion in the right direfction) that you are talking about, you are effectively designing a small aircraft that happens to plane on water.

The speeds we are talking about, we are probably somewhat above Cessna technology levels.

Yes it might help if you have experience in flight control computers, software and systems...

Might help??? I should think it would be a serious advantage if you did have relevant experience

You still have to bolt the control systems to an impressive piece of structural engineering...

[Life Saab Itch]

You say it like it's only one person...

[Life Saab Itch]

yoof full chav said:

Life Saab Itch said:

You say it like it's only one person...

Okay fair point, but as you can only have one driver at a time, if things go tits up, you wouldnt get anyone jumping to get into it once it's been rebuilt

Offshore power boats have two drivers. One for steering, the other for throttles. Technically you could have two for a WSR attempt.

[Life Saab Itch]

yoof full chav said:

Life Saab Itch said:

yoof full chav said:

Life Saab Itch said:

You say it like it's only one person...

Okay fair point, but as you can only have one driver at a time, if things go tits up, you wouldnt get anyone jumping to get into it once it's been rebuilt

Offshore power boats have two drivers. One for steering, the other for throttles. Technically you could have two for a WSR attempt.

Hmmmm, not sure on that one. I know that aussie, ken warby?? He just had himself, and i think donald campbell and others who have tried to set water speed records have usually done so solo. TBH i think others have tried since warby set his record, and died trying to better it, so if you are driving this thing, you better make sure that whoever screws it together does a first rate job.

The materials technology is proven though. If you think about driver safety cells from 1978, think about something with state of the art technology for that period, something comparable (if not further advanced) with the build techniques used on the WSR vessels. In F1, they were still using hand formed ally monocoques. These were not great in absorbing impacts whilst keeping the driver intact. In some cases, they were not great at holding the car together due to fatigue etc. Fast forward to the modern day, Carbon safety cells have made the drivers safer than ever before. Deaths are thankfully (touch wood) relegated to the history books and injuries to the drivers whilst in the cars are very rare.

If those techniques were carried over to a WSR craft it would be a hell of a lot safer than when a serious attempt was last tried.

Going further than just the safety cell, fixings and the like are of a better quality these days. CAD and 3D modelling mean that you can check every part for interferences rather than making a bit to a drawing, then having to modify it when you find out that you need that bit more space to allow for x or y to fit in because you had to move z because A got replaced by B which was 130% of the size etc.

Going back to your point (I fear I may have rambled a little from the original path) getting the right people to nail the thing together is far easier than getting the parts made to the standard that you would want.