Bluebird K7 Latest
Discussion
Jim H said:
I have no idea how it was all funded.
Simple answer: largely by public subscription.It could have been funded largely by the Lottery Commission, if he-who-shall-not-be-named hadn't thrown his teddy out of the cot (and pissed them off with the usual peurile name calling that he always resorts to when he doesn't get it all his own way).
Jim H said:
...wouldn’t you agree?
No, I wouldn't.The outcome of the past mistakes is something that will continue to have repercussions for K7, going forward (not least on whether she can ever realistically be run again).
If we're not interested in what happened in the past, then why are we discussing a boat that crashed in 1967?
I honestly don’t think it’ll will ever run again.
Especially on Coniston. Or anywhere. Nobody has got that fanatical enthusiasm these days. Or the deep pockets. And it has been said before? Who’s actually interested?
Nope, I had this funny feeling when I looked upon it,
the overwhelming feeling: ‘ it won’t leave this room’
There you go Equus - we agree on something.
It was ok to (ish) to see in the museum. Not exactly as one has wished.
A bit rough and ready. But nothing could or should taint the story behind it.
I think the museum will do very well out of it.
Actually very well.
Especially on Coniston. Or anywhere. Nobody has got that fanatical enthusiasm these days. Or the deep pockets. And it has been said before? Who’s actually interested?
Nope, I had this funny feeling when I looked upon it,
the overwhelming feeling: ‘ it won’t leave this room’
There you go Equus - we agree on something.
It was ok to (ish) to see in the museum. Not exactly as one has wished.
A bit rough and ready. But nothing could or should taint the story behind it.
I think the museum will do very well out of it.
Actually very well.
It will end up being an interesting addendum to the Ruskin. As you have agreed, nobody is actually interested. It's history, interesting history to petrol heads, so might encourage some people to do more research. But how many people are in the Lake District to see Bluebird? Not many. Most are there for the climbing, fell walking and artistry.
Equus said:
dr_gn said:
I'd be surprised if any of the Bute pilots woud have risked it unless they'd seen evidence to confirm it was structurally fit to run - They're not daft.
Not daft like John Cobb, Reid Railton and Peter DuCane?Or not daft like Les Staudacher, perhaps?
Both, let's not forget, misjudged how extreme the loadings can be on jet hydroplanes at high speed and paid the price* (Cobb was killed; Staudacher merely left with a permanent disability).**
* Staudacher (who for those not familiar with his name, is the best known and most experienced builder of Unlimited Hydroplanes, ever) actually did so twice: as I mentioned in passing earlier in the thread, he lost Tempo Alcoa to a structural failure of the sponson, after an earlier crash and fortunately under radio control so that no pilot was harmed, but then was very badly injured himself when the rudder tore loose on Miss Stars and Stripes II at speed).
** I won't mention Lee Taylor, 'cos we're none of us absolutely sure whether to put his death down to structural failure or dynamic instability, but of course K7 was/is not immune to the latter, either.
Edited by Equus on Sunday 21st April 16:56
I'm talking about pilots who are demonstrating something at a fraction of its design speed, also well below the speed at which it was known to run without issue in the past.
What I'm saying is that, despite the boat being immersed in water for decades, and un-crumpled (and all the implications that might have on structural integrity), surely the pilots weren't daft enough to risk too much without being shown some credible evidence that the boat was reasonably safe to run at those relatively low speeds? Not sure if insurance came into it at any point, but even so.
- was
Edited by dr_gn on Sunday 21st April 17:46
Equus said:
Jim H said:
It’s so easy to nit- pick about something you haven’t achieved and done.
So what it’s got a wonky paint finish in places, and the rivets are not modern day aircraft standard
And obviously volunteers. Think about that. But it came out of someone’s pocket. And that must be a lot of money.
Let's also not forget that there is one, single man who is responsible for that: the Lottery Commission expressed a willingness to fund the restoration, in which case it would have certainly been done to a much higher standard (likely by the experts at Duxford; likely much quicker than BBP managed it), had a certain loud-mouthed Geordy gobsSo what it’s got a wonky paint finish in places, and the rivets are not modern day aircraft standard
And obviously volunteers. Think about that. But it came out of someone’s pocket. And that must be a lot of money.
te refused to let them play, unless they were willing to play to his rules.Don't fall for the BBP propaganda that they were the only team who could have managed it, nor the suggestion that it came out of just one pocket... it came out of many, many pockets.
I'm still of the opinion a running replica of K7 along the lines of the K777 was the way to go, with K7 being either left well alone, or preserved as a wreck. At present we're left with a bit of both.
Jordie Barretts sock said:
dr_gn said:
Jordie Barretts sock said:
How fast did it run at Bute?
Up to about 150 mph according to a quick Google search.But then again, I've done it in a TVR...
dr_gn said:
Very different scenarios: yours appear to be of people driven to try and achieve a risky competitive goal, possibly while pushing their equipment close to its limits?
Not really. With Cobb, perhaps (though not at speeds massively higher than K7 was running on Loch Fad). Staudacher's accidents both happened at fairly moderate speed in early testing (as I said, one of them actually under radio control, so certainly not a competitive record run).Remember that the UK unlimited immersed propeller record (held by one of the boats I pictured above) is only 155mph.
Sir Henry Segrave was killed on Windermere due to structural failure of his boat's planing surface (it may or may not have hit something - we're not sure) at 100mph, and Campbell himself destroyed Bluebird K4 on Coniston at lower speed than they were hitting at Loch Fad (again, structural failure; again he may or may not have hit something - we're not sure)*.
These sorts of speeds on water are not to be taken lightly, even today: Unlimited circuit hydros regularly have accidents at in the 100-200mph range and pilots only walk away from them because they are belted into modern safey cells.
dr_gn said:
I'm talking about pilots who are demonstrating something at a fraction of its design speed, also well below the speed at which it was known to run without issue in the past.
Ah yes. Below 100mph for safety reasons?We know how strictly that was adhered to, on Loch Fad?
And don't get me going on some of the showboating (pun intended) on Loch Fad, with hard, tight turns at relatively high speed, which she'd never been designed for.
Regardless, as above: as has been discussed earlier, her 'design speed' was 250mph and Campbell talked about the 'Water Barrier' at circa 200mph speeds. Her first record was 'only' 200mph, and her final one 276mph. Campbell himself ran into trouble and failed to take records on several occasions (notably Lake Canandaigua), so it's difficult to talk of K7 running 'without issue'. Even when she was new and in perfect structural and running order, the risks at speeds significantly over 100mph are not to be trivialised or treated as routine.
Edited to add:
* While at the Ruskin, I overheard a couple of guys in, I would guess, their 40's, mis-reading one of the information boards that related the tale of the Campbell's, father and son, exploits with K4, from which they concluded - with some disappointment - that K7 had been destroyed at 'only' 141mph (the official record speed set by K4).
Edited by Equus on Sunday 21st April 18:28
Equus said:
Ah yes. Below 100mph for safety reasons?
We know how strictly that was adhered to, on Loch Fad?
And don't get me going on some of the showboating (pun intended) on Loch Fad, with hard, tight turns at relatively high speed, which she'd never been designed for.
Regardless, as above: as has been discussed earlier, her 'design speed' was 250mph and Campbell talked about the 'Water Barrier' at circa 200mph speeds. Her first record was 'only' 200mph, and her final one 276mph. Campbell himself ran into trouble and failed to take records on several occasions (notably Lake Canandaigua), so it's difficult to talk of K7 running 'without issue'. Even when she was new and in perfect structural and running order, the risks at speeds significantly over 100mph are not to be trivialised or treated as routine.
Not saying it was ever routine, but my point was that the pilots must have satisfied themselves that it was at least structurally sound enough to run at those speeds IIRC one was a fast jet pilot, the other a powerboat racer? Both must be well aware of what could happen if something broke. By “not daft”, I meant that surely they wouldn’t have simply taken the word of some bloke saying “it’ll be fine”? Maybe they did - I’ve no idea. There must be a BBP diary post that addresses the integrity of the frame and how it was evaluated.We know how strictly that was adhered to, on Loch Fad?
And don't get me going on some of the showboating (pun intended) on Loch Fad, with hard, tight turns at relatively high speed, which she'd never been designed for.
Regardless, as above: as has been discussed earlier, her 'design speed' was 250mph and Campbell talked about the 'Water Barrier' at circa 200mph speeds. Her first record was 'only' 200mph, and her final one 276mph. Campbell himself ran into trouble and failed to take records on several occasions (notably Lake Canandaigua), so it's difficult to talk of K7 running 'without issue'. Even when she was new and in perfect structural and running order, the risks at speeds significantly over 100mph are not to be trivialised or treated as routine.
dr_gn said:
...but my point was that the pilots must have satisfied themselves that it was at least structurally sound enough to run at those speeds...
And my point is that pilots and (more importantly) highly qualified, respected and expert engineers (you don't get bigger names than Railton, Du Cane and Staudacher in this field) were similarly satisfied, but got it (badly) wrong.Ted Walsh is indeed an experienced race boat driver, but that experience had previously been limited to outboard-engined tunnel hulls, which bear very little relationship in either design or construction to K7. I believe that his fastest record remains
Jim Noone, incidentally, was the driver for Bluebird K777 replica, which they failed to even get planing.
Like Jordie Barrett's Sock, my fastest speed to date has been in a TVR (163mph on GPS), though I can now also claim - on the way back from seeing K7 - to have hit an indicated 150mph in an EV*. My fastest speed in a boat has probably been slightly under 100mph (in an R1-class inboard hydro), but was a far more trouser-wetting experience than either... and not just because you get quite a bit of spray into the cockpit.
* For any law enforcement officers reading this: this absolutely did not happen, and certainly wouldn't be achievable on the short section of dual carriageway on the A47 just outside King's Lynn.
In the words of the great Bart Simpson: I didn't do it, nobody saw me do it, there's nobody can prove anything.
ETA: Having just checked, it seems that Ted Walsh has now managed to break the 150mph mark officially... still slightly below Jim Noone's UK prop record in Miss Windermere, though.
Edited by Equus on Sunday 21st April 19:15
I was in France on the way back from Le Mans.
Agree regarding speed on water, it always seems twice as fast. Being towed at 30knts on skis is err, sore if you don't remember to keep your knees together when you wipe out. Planing on your arse, using your balls as brakes is a very sobering experience.
Agree regarding speed on water, it always seems twice as fast. Being towed at 30knts on skis is err, sore if you don't remember to keep your knees together when you wipe out. Planing on your arse, using your balls as brakes is a very sobering experience.
dr_gn said:
It's interesting to compare the restoration of K7 with the FAA Museum's restoration of the Fairey Barracuda (I know the two have certain links). I'm following the Barracuda restoration on Facebook, and despite there being only a very small team (seems to be one man doing the majority of the work), it does seem to be of incredibly good quality. Many parts are being completely remanufactured from original drawings , and/or using original damaged parts as patterns (again, many of which were recovered from wrecks on land or raised from the sea). Progress is steady, but it's the quality that's so nice to see. As someone who dabbles in model engineering as a pastime, it's often quite demoralising.
I'm still of the opinion a running replica of K7 along the lines of the K777 was the way to go, with K7 being either left well alone, or preserved as a wreck. At present we're left with a bit of both.
I can't really see anything positive in running a replica of a boat that killed someone because it was fundamentally 'not very safe'.I'm still of the opinion a running replica of K7 along the lines of the K777 was the way to go, with K7 being either left well alone, or preserved as a wreck. At present we're left with a bit of both.
How many times are you going to roll the dice with any replica?
How much safety margin are you going to give the pilot?
You could have a full-scale remote control replica I suppose, but what does anyone actually get from any of this?
OutInTheShed said:
dr_gn said:
It's interesting to compare the restoration of K7 with the FAA Museum's restoration of the Fairey Barracuda (I know the two have certain links). I'm following the Barracuda restoration on Facebook, and despite there being only a very small team (seems to be one man doing the majority of the work), it does seem to be of incredibly good quality. Many parts are being completely remanufactured from original drawings , and/or using original damaged parts as patterns (again, many of which were recovered from wrecks on land or raised from the sea). Progress is steady, but it's the quality that's so nice to see. As someone who dabbles in model engineering as a pastime, it's often quite demoralising.
I'm still of the opinion a running replica of K7 along the lines of the K777 was the way to go, with K7 being either left well alone, or preserved as a wreck. At present we're left with a bit of both.
I can't really see anything positive in running a replica of a boat that killed someone because it was fundamentally 'not very safe'.I'm still of the opinion a running replica of K7 along the lines of the K777 was the way to go, with K7 being either left well alone, or preserved as a wreck. At present we're left with a bit of both.
How many times are you going to roll the dice with any replica?
How much safety margin are you going to give the pilot?
You could have a full-scale remote control replica I suppose, but what does anyone actually get from any of this?
What’s the point of it? What’s the point of any demonstration of a vehicle?
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff