RE: Bloodhound SSC project enters administration

RE: Bloodhound SSC project enters administration

Author
Discussion

jonny142

1,503 posts

225 months

Tuesday 16th October 2018
quotequote all
Blown2CV said:
a lot has happened in 10 years i suppose, outside of the project. Was the original aim to have it done within a decade?
^ Is the correct answer , What big company would fund this in this battery eco age without a PR backlash ?

Hugh Jarse

3,497 posts

205 months

Wednesday 17th October 2018
quotequote all

IN51GHT

8,777 posts

210 months

Wednesday 17th October 2018
quotequote all
donkmeister said:
The thing about Richard Noble is that whilst he is charismatic he is also a realist and solidly grounded in engineering...
There are two statements in that sentence that are incorrect, I'll let you decide which two.

AndrewEH1

4,917 posts

153 months

Wednesday 17th October 2018
quotequote all
IN51GHT said:
There are two statements in that sentence that are incorrect, I'll let you decide which two.
At some point it would be interesting to hear all the carry ons that were happening behind the scene on this project and what caused you to finally say enough is enough.

Maybe next year once Bloodhound is wound up

RB Will

9,663 posts

240 months

Wednesday 17th October 2018
quotequote all
Quick question just popped into my head. Why does Bloodhound use a car engine as a fuel pump? I'm guessing in the normal system of fuelling a jet engine its just a normal electric pump?

IN51GHT

8,777 posts

210 months

Thursday 18th October 2018
quotequote all
wab172uk said:
There is a guy commenting in this thread who worked on the project for several years. He knows more than any of the rest of us, so maybe ask him a serious question and let him answer you. Then don't argue afterwards.
byebye

shakotan

10,684 posts

196 months

Thursday 18th October 2018
quotequote all
RB Will said:
Quick question just popped into my head. Why does Bloodhound use a car engine as a fuel pump? I'm guessing in the normal system of fuelling a jet engine its just a normal electric pump?
Sheer volume of fuel.

IN51GHT

8,777 posts

210 months

Thursday 18th October 2018
quotequote all
shakotan said:
RB Will said:
Quick question just popped into my head. Why does Bloodhound use a car engine as a fuel pump? I'm guessing in the normal system of fuelling a jet engine its just a normal electric pump?
Sheer volume of fuel.
I asked the same question on multiple occasions, I suggested 4 years ago now an electrically driven pump, it was ridiculed, at a pre-Newquay meeting one of the marketeers suggested it & it was the best idea since sliced bread, then low & behold at Newquay tests I find out we are looking into an electrically driven pump. Me, bitter, not much!!!

IN51GHT

8,777 posts

210 months

Thursday 18th October 2018
quotequote all
AndrewEH1 said:
IN51GHT said:
There are two statements in that sentence that are incorrect, I'll let you decide which two.
At some point it would be interesting to hear all the carry ons that were happening behind the scene on this project and what caused you to finally say enough is enough.

Maybe next year once Bloodhound is wound up
Maybe, who knows, the current time is not the right time, I'm too sore & too emotional to make reasoned comment.

Ahonen

5,016 posts

279 months

Thursday 18th October 2018
quotequote all
donkmeister said:
If you aren't a proper engineer you just chop the wings off an F-104 and hope for the best.
This guy's approach is funny and scary in equal measure. Despite everything he must have read and learned about the challenges the Thrust SSC team had to overcome, he's decided that it was all nonsense and you just need a 1960s fighter plane.

IN51GHT

8,777 posts

210 months

Thursday 18th October 2018
quotequote all
Ahonen said:
donkmeister said:
If you aren't a proper engineer you just chop the wings off an F-104 and hope for the best.
This guy's approach is funny and scary in equal measure. Despite everything he must have read and learned about the challenges the Thrust SSC team had to overcome, he's decided that it was all nonsense and you just need a 1960s fighter plane.
...and sadly, Ed Shadle who owned & run the project succumbed to cancer a short while ago.


Blown2CV

28,786 posts

203 months

Thursday 18th October 2018
quotequote all
IN51GHT said:
wab172uk said:
There is a guy commenting in this thread who worked on the project for several years. He knows more than any of the rest of us, so maybe ask him a serious question and let him answer you. Then don't argue afterwards.
byebye
i guess all the real steps forward are always hard fought right? Things like this, when they come off, the people involved always say that everyone else was telling them it could not be done but they ignored it and pressed on, and they eventually got there. The journey is never easy... and of course some things are objectively impossible, and some things are of unclear value.

Equus

16,852 posts

101 months

Thursday 18th October 2018
quotequote all
It begs the question whether the project was simply over-ambitious, technically.

Most previous holders of the LSR (including Richard Noble's original Thrust II) have been relatively crude, cheap devices. Art Arfons' Green Monster of course (which Thrust II strongly resembled) , was famously so, having been basically knocked up in his shed round an engine that had been discarded as unserviceable.

Maybe if they'd stuck to less ambitious speed targets, and incremental advances using well-established technology and solutions, we wouldn't be talking about needing a further £25 million to complete the job, with a car that's already almost complete.

No previous attempt has run at anything even vaguely resembling that level of expenditure - except, perhaps, Donald Campbell's Bluebird CN7, which was a similar tour-de-force, technically, and almost as disappointing in terms of the results it achieved.

It really didn't make much sense to aim at such a big-budget approach, in a world that increasingly views the LSR as an irrelevance.

IN51GHT

8,777 posts

210 months

Thursday 18th October 2018
quotequote all
Equus said:
It begs the question whether the project was simply over-ambitious, technically.

Most previous holders of the LSR (including Richard Noble's original Thrust II) have been relatively crude, cheap devices. Art Arfons' Green Monster of course (which Thrust II strongly resembled) , was famously so, having been basically knocked up in his shed round an engine that had been discarded as unserviceable.

Maybe if they'd stuck to less ambitious speed targets......
800mph is hardly ambitious.

Wammer

394 posts

188 months

Thursday 18th October 2018
quotequote all
chrisironside said:
Europa1 said:
cookie1600 said:
chrisironside said:
I contacted Universal Studios about this.
I seem to remember that Thrust was converted and used as a Batmobile in one of the films.
Really???

I'm sure the Coventry Transport Museum would have noticed it being pushed out of the door:

https://www.transport-museum.com/visiting/biffa_aw...
There has been more than one record breaking car called Thrust - google Thrust 2. Still sounds like an iffy claim - I would have thought it would be a lot cheaper to get a props department to build a Batmobile than convert an actual jet powered car.
Yep, doesn't seem to be one ounce of truth in it!

Should have done a little due diligence first. It was the Batman/Batman Returns one I thought it applied to.

Doubt Universal will take my proposal seriously now ??
You all seem not to be able to read, the original poster said that Thrust had been bought by Universal studios not Thrust 2 or Thrust SSC. Thrust was the test vehicle built by Richard Noble before Thrust 2 was built for the Land Speed record. There could definitely be some truth as the Batman returns Batmobile looks fairly similar to Thrust.

Mave

8,208 posts

215 months

Thursday 18th October 2018
quotequote all
Equus said:
It begs the question whether the project was simply over-ambitious, technically.

Most previous holders of the LSR (including Richard Noble's original Thrust II) have been relatively crude, cheap devices. Art Arfons' Green Monster of course (which Thrust II strongly resembled) , was famously so, having been basically knocked up in his shed round an engine that had been discarded as unserviceable.

Maybe if they'd stuck to less ambitious speed targets, and incremental advances using well-established technology and solutions, we wouldn't be talking about needing a further £25 million to complete the job, with a car that's already almost complete.
Thrust SSC was hardly crude and cheap, and if you want a new LSR then you need to be faster than that! Fundamentally there is no such thing as "well established technology and solutions" for a supersonic car.

Equus

16,852 posts

101 months

Thursday 18th October 2018
quotequote all
IN51GHT said:
800mph is hardly ambitious.
I thought that the target was 1,000mph?

In any case, it's not what they were trying to achieve, but the way they were trying to achieve it.

Back in the 1960's, you could do 400mph using a completely bespoke 4-wheel drive drivetain, in a monocoque body/chassis using the best current aviation structural technology, with specially developed tyres, the best available telemetry, etc., etc., all supplied by the leaders in each technological field.

...or you could use a second-hand jet engine bolted to a ladder frame chassis, using hot-rod parts.

History records which worked best. wink

Formula 1 engines driving bespoke turbopumps, just to deliver the fuel supply, wasn't it?

Maybe that would have been necessary, to achieve the big step up from the current 763mph to 1,000mph, but I'm sure that there are simpler, cheaper ways to do it if you're 'only' aiming at 800.

AndrewEH1

4,917 posts

153 months

Thursday 18th October 2018
quotequote all
IN51GHT said:
I asked the same question on multiple occasions, I suggested 4 years ago now an electrically driven pump, it was ridiculed, at a pre-Newquay meeting one of the marketeers suggested it & it was the best idea since sliced bread, then low & behold at Newquay tests I find out we are looking into an electrically driven pump. Me, bitter, not much!!!
Well getting JLR on board gave them some fancy cars to run about town in! Who are you to question the know-how of marketeers, especially when it comes to engineering!!

It's pretty dumbfounding their aim was to break 1,000mph but weren't putting sound engineering first.

Big noisy white elephant comes to mind!

3.8 MOD

120 posts

188 months

Thursday 18th October 2018
quotequote all
Equus said:

"It begs the question whether the project was simply over-ambitious, technically."

Quite so. Not.
Technically over ambitious...
Isn't that the raison d'etre of any record attempt?

anonymous-user

54 months

Thursday 18th October 2018
quotequote all
Reminds me of John "two hits" Otway's attempt to organise a world tour using a leased Boeing 747,

"In 2002, when asked what he wanted for his 50th birthday, he requested "a second hit". A concerted drive to select the track, saw "Bunsen Burner" — with music sampled from the Trammps song "Disco Inferno" and lyrics devised to help his daughter with her chemistry homework – reach number nine in the UK Singles Chart and earned Otway an appearance on Top of the Pops.

"To encourage fans to buy more than one copy each of the single, he released three different versions. The flip-side of "Bunsen Burner – The Hit Mix" was a cover of "The House of the Rising Sun" recorded at Abbey Road Studios and featuring 900 of his fans on backing vocals, each of whom was credited by name on the single's sleeve.

"Buoyed by the success of the hit campaign, Otway planned an ambitious world tour in October 2006. Otway proposed hiring his own jet to take his band, and 300 of his fans, to some of the most prestigious venues in the world, including Carnegie Hall and Sydney Opera House. Despite over 150 fans signing up, the tour was cancelled as the costs of the plane spiralled." - Wikipedia