RE: Bloodhound SSC project enters administration

[IN51GHT]

Equus said:

Mave said:

Did Bluebird have serious stability problems just before it flipped?

Yes, absolutely.

She was well known for violent tramping, and had become completely airborne on several occasions previously (at Lake Canandaiga for example), at lower speeds than that at which she crashed..

She had exhibited the tramping throughout the run during which she flipped. The tramping was not thought to be a problem - just an unpleasant characteristic. She gave no warning that she was about to take off on the final run, until it was too late to recover.

Mave said:

There's plenty of evidence of it occurring in slimmer cars as well, hence SOA.

No such evidence on SOA... she veered off course sideways due to crosswinds. Nothing to do with lift.

SOA has a huge rear delta, a shockwave got under it & lifted the rear of the car.

[Equus]

IN51GHT said:

SOA has a huge rear delta, a shockwave got under it & lifted the rear of the car.

When?

My understanding was that she was well subsonic, when she went off-course?

edited to add: from the horse's mouth. Breedlove attributes the crash to a misreported 15 knot crosswind. And he was there at the time, I believe.

Edited by Equus on Saturday 20th October 13:55

[Mave]

Equus said:

No such evidence on SOA... she veered off course sideways due to crosswinds. Nothing to do with lift.

My point is that small incidence changes - whether horizontal or vertical - can cause significant moments on the car, particularly at transonic speeds and above.

[Robster]

Equus has my nomination for tt of the year

[Equus]

Mave said:

My point is that small incidence changes - whether horizontal or vertical - can cause significant moments on the car, particularly at transonic speeds and above.

No, the spurious point you have been trying to labour is that SOA exhibited evidence of shockwave lift, despite her slender delta planform. You're now trying to move the goalposts and talk your way out of it, having been proved wrong.

Yes, all very high speed vehicles are susceptible to changes in pitch and yaw. Wide planform vehicles especially so for the former.

No, there's no evidence that SoA's design is susceptible to stability problems, or changes in pitch or yaw, resulting from transonic/supersonic shockwaves. Her off-course excursion was a result of crosswind, nothing more.

[Mave]

Equus said:

IN51GHT said:

SOA has a huge rear delta, a shockwave got under it & lifted the rear of the car.

When?

My understanding was that she was well subsonic, when she went off-course?

edited to add: from the horse's mouth. Breedlove attributes the crash to a misreported 15 knot crosswind. And he was there at the time, I believe.

675mph is not "well subsonic". It's transonic.

[Mave]

Equus said:

Mave said:

My point is that small incidence changes - whether horizontal or vertical - can cause significant moments on the car, particularly at transonic speeds and above.

No, the spurious point you have been trying to labour is that SOA exhibited evidence of shockwave lift, despite her slender delta planform. You're now trying to move the goalposts and talk your way out of it, having been proved wrong.

No
1) Nowhere have I talked about "shockwave lift". I've talked about stability, and I've talked about shockwaves, both of which I think are implicated in SOA
2) Nowhere have you proved me wrong
3) Use of emotive phrases like "spurious" and "labour" in this and other posts does nothing to add credibility to your opinion.

[Equus]

Mave said:

Nowhere have you proved me wrong

And nowhere have you offered any evidence that you are right

You're not a flat-earther and climate change denier, too, by any chance?

I've shown you statements from the man who was actually driving the car at the time, and who has the experience of having broken the LSR 5 times, proving that he believes you are wrong. That's good enough for me.

[IN51GHT]

Equus said:

IN51GHT said:

SOA has a huge rear delta, a shockwave got under it & lifted the rear of the car.

When?

My understanding was that she was well subsonic, when she went off-course?

edited to add: from the horse's mouth. Breedlove attributes the crash to a misreported 15 knot crosswind. And he was there at the time, I believe.

Edited by Equus on Saturday 20th October 13:55

The rear of the car got airborn, the crosswing caused it to tip over.

"Well subsonic", transonic is not well subsonic, shockwaves start eminating before you are truley supersonic.Just a small increase in pressure under the rear delta would have been sufficient to cause lift, F=PxA.

[Mave]

Equus said:

Mave said:

Nowhere have you proved me wrong

And nowhere have you offered any evidence that you are right

I didn't claim I've proved that I'm right.
But you did claim that you've proved me wrong which is not the same thing, and it's the thing I'm disputing.

[Mave]

Equus said:

I've shown you statements from the man who was actually driving the car at the time, and who has the experience of having broken the LSR 5 times, proving that he believes you are wrong. That's good enough for me.

Where in those statements does he say anything that disagrees with what I've said?

[Equus]

IN51GHT said:

The rear of the car got airborn, the crosswing caused it to tip over.

You have evidence for that? Because it's not what Breedlove himself says...

Craig Breedlove said:

We had a guy in a plane to check that the course was clear and get a wind report. The wind on the first run was a 1.5-knot crosswind. The report came in for the second run and it said “one five” so I thought it was still 1.5 knots but what I didn’t get was that it was 15 knots, not 1.5. ...I heard one five and figured I was good to go.

...it had just cleared 675... Right then the wind caught me and blew the car on its side, so then I had a whole other problem. It went up on its side into the wind, and then started to settle, then came up again then dropped down on its wheels.

And if it did become airborne at the rear prior to being caught by the wind, you have evidence that it was as a result of transonic shockwaves?

Mave said:

Where in those statements does he say anything that disagrees with what I've said?

Crossed post. See above.

[Mave]

Equus said:

Crossed post. See above.

Think about that for a moment.
If the car was stationary, do you think a 15mph gust would push it over?

[IN51GHT]

Equus said:

IN51GHT said:

The rear of the car got airborn, the crosswing caused it to tip over.

You have evidence for that? Because it's not what Breedlove himself says...

Take a look at the car, even the hardest of thinking, with a biaic understanding of engineering & pysics can see a 15knt gust would simply not blow it over, it has a good, wide track at the rear, with minimal cross section when view from the side. I have good friends who were there, actually on Blackrock when it happened & mysteriously there where no rear wheel tracks for a good distance before in landed on it's side.

No no, I cannot prove it beyond doubt, but I have a fk load more annecdotal evidence than you do.

I'm done with these two, get a room.

I have more insight into LSR than most of the people on PH, but still you bang on I do not have to "prove myself" to anyone on here.

Equus, you are an antagonistic idiot, who will agrue about anything, I am not willing to give you any more of my time.

Edited by IN51GHT on Saturday 20th October 15:42

[Equus]

Mave said:

Think about that for a moment.
If the car was stationary, do you think a 15mph gust would push it over?

Quite obviously not.

But having been hit by crosswinds on the motorway at low three-figure speeds, I'm quite happy to believe that the same thing at 675mph would be enough to engender a tankslapper and the requirement for fresh trousers, no matter how inherently stable the vehicle is.

[Equus]

Equus said:

You have evidence for that? Because it's not what Breedlove himself says...

IN51GHT said:

Equus, you are an antagonistic idiot, who will agrue about anything, I am not willing to give you any more of my time.

I'll take that as a no, then.

I'm not asking you to 'prove yourself', merely to substantiate your statements about an event that you didn't witness any more than any of us did, in contradiction of the man who was in the cockpit at the time.

[tigerkoi]

I can completely understand now how something like Bloodhound after ten years is still not done. There must have been too many engineers on it constantly arguing about who knew more.

Disastrous! Engineers obviously need firm leadership and direction!

[Mave]

Equus said:

Mave said:

Think about that for a moment.
If the car was stationary, do you think a 15mph gust would push it over?

Quite obviously not.

But having been hit by crosswinds on the motorway at low three-figure speeds, I'm quite happy to believe that the same thing at 675mph would be enough to engender a tankslapper and the requirement for fresh trousers, no matter how inherently stable the vehicle is.

Your car generally gets less stable at speed. A LSR car should be designed to get more stable. I can believe that the 15mph gust initiated the crash, but I also think the car wasn't as stable as intended at that speed, making it very sensitive to crosswind in the first place.

[IN51GHT]

tigerkoi said:

I can completely understand now how something like Bloodhound after ten years is still not done. There must have been too many engineers on it constantly arguing about who knew more.

That was certainly not the case

[Blown2CV]

the thing with PH is that everyone likes to project the image of being soaked in oil underneath their home garage/workshop pit Guy Martin type, been servicing me own cars since before you were born lad, OR i am a successful director of a successful engineering company or other such hands on type thing.... either way they must surely be an expert on st like this and the primal male ego is super strong. It has been surprising that when you get these super Dad-like and clearly unbelievably knowledgeable characters together they sound like a playground quarrel over the rules of Tig.