The Land and Water Speed Records Thread

The Land and Water Speed Records Thread

Author
Discussion

malcolm speed

9 posts

105 months

Wednesday 4th May 2011
quotequote all
Sam_68 clearly writes from a stance of having a design of WSR in mind. How far has the design/build progressed?

I think you added in too many or's and the UIM clearly intend the hull to ride on the water and be manouvered by a reaction to the water. The only 'or' allows the prop to be thrown away and rocket or jet reaction used (or an air prop).

'Hypergolic' fuel taken to Coniston suggests a propulsion unit of the rocket variety. How controllable will the throttling be?

Which year did you approach the LDNPA? Two years ago they received a detailed 'paper' on the likely problems which could arise with a 150 mph jet powerboat. Would like to see how they cope when permission is finally requested for a 400 mph rocket boat to attempt a WSR.

The taking part in a record attempt follows from using a 'powerboating' craft, the UIM do not otherwise class jets or rockets as a race series so the reverse logic does not appear to apply.

If I recall correctly Colin Chapman hoped his cars would just last until the finish line is reached, not an attractive thought in the context of water record breaking if it fails as you exit the kilo timing trap.

Malcolm.


Edited by malcolm speed on Wednesday 4th May 21:39

Life Saab Itch

Original Poster:

37,068 posts

137 months

Wednesday 4th May 2011
quotequote all
Sam_68 has mentioned before about an existing design aiming at the 400mph target if I recall correctly.

DJRC

23,563 posts

185 months

Wednesday 4th May 2011
quotequote all
Sam_68 said:
I understand where you're coming from, and agree with it to some extent, but (as Snoggledog has also pointed out) you do have to appreciate that even a conventional 3-pointer acts as a sort of 'semi WIG' when it's propriding (the air being forced through the trap in ground effect provides the majority of support to the hull, not the planing surfaces).

Very fast boats operate in a grey area between aerodynamic and hydrodynamic control and support, so the UIM wording that allows flexibility in aerodynamic control/support/propulsion, provided all three are not total, is a clever and pragmatic response.

To take such a purist view would otherwise ultimately lead you back to displacement hulls with no means of control apart from immersed rudder and no form of propulsion apart from immersed propellor, which would be equally unconscionable.
You have mail Sam.

Life Saab Itch

Original Poster:

37,068 posts

137 months

Wednesday 4th May 2011
quotequote all
When you two make this boat, can I suggest the name "Miss England"?

Sam_68

9,939 posts

194 months

Wednesday 4th May 2011
quotequote all
malcolm speed said:
How far has the design/build progressed?
First (prop driven, for British Unlimited Immersed Propellor) progressed to partially constructed hull, before we ran out of money and hit the last recession. Last seen rotting away in a shed in East Anglia...

That boat was intended to be a fundraiser for an unlimited thrust design, which had progressed to detailed design stage and a lot of negotiations with Authorities, sponsors, etc.

Current design is not really intended to go anywhere other than to provide me with a mental challenge and maybe to prove a few concepts by model testing: Quicksinker has queered the pitch for any other British attempt by its notable lack of progress for more years than I care to remember, and the economy is hardly bouyant enough to encourage another contender at present. Besides which, as I get older, I get more reluctant to run the risk of killing some young guy...

malcolm speed said:
I think you added in too many or's and the UIM clearly intend the hull to ride on the water and be manouvered by a reaction to the water.
I didn't add any 'or's'. That what the rule says... you quoted it yourself. It only has one 'or'; that's all it needs. If they'd have meant 'and', they'd have said so. smile

I've had enough negotiation with the UIM and RYA to know that they simply don't take your aproach of 'lets see how we can use the rules to stop it' with any new idea. On the contrary, they recognise that powerboat racing is a relatively low profile, minority motorsport and that the WWSR hasn't had any valid challengers for decades. In all the dealings I've had with them, they have been very positive about flexible interpretation of rules (not just design, but licencing etc.), if they thought it would help a project along.

FWIIW, the rules have been revised in recent years to make them more flexible in this respect. I can tell you that the old Rule 500 definition of a boat simply read: 'by boat we understand any vessel used in powerboating (hydroplane, monohull, catamaran, etc...). No mention of the means of support, propulsion and control stuff that it does now.

Ask me how I know? Because I was responsible for asking some of the questions that resulted in the clarification..

malcolm speed said:
'Hypergolic' fuel taken to Coniston suggests a propulsion unit of the rocket variety. How controllable will the throttling be?
That was the first unlimited thrust design. I wouldn't go that route again - if I were to do a serious design these days, I'd use a jet. Fuel weight, supply and safety were all major problems - you need to burn tonnes of the stuff in a few seconds, and as suggested, it's pretty nasty stuff if there's an accident.

The design used pressurised nitrogen to blow the fuel into the combustion chamber, which meant that throttling was by means of simple valves. One of the things that stalled and ultimately killed the project was lack of a company willing to take on the filament-wound fuel/pressure tank design and manufacture, though.

The short answer to your question though, is 'very': shut the valves and you kill the power, more or less instantly. Which is more than can be said for a jet engine, which acts as a fking great hairdrier until the turbine spools down.

Of course range of throttle movement is a limitation: when you've got (at most) 4" of control range to modulate the power between zero and 30,000lb thrust, you're never going to be able to trickle it down the Leeds and Liverpool Canal at the 4mph speed limit... the bigger problem is actually ensuring that the power doesn't shut down too fast as this will almost always critically de-stabilise the boat. We were looking at damped or servo-controlled valves, to prevent such inadvertent sudden changes (being conscious that Cobb had experienced problems with his foot bouncing on the throttle of 'Crusader', even with the sluggish throttle response of a jet engine), and we were equally conscious of the need to ensure a gradual automatic shutdown of the engine if fuel started running low, to avoid a sudden change of trhust in a 'flame-out'.

malcolm speed said:
Which year did you approach the LDNPA? Two years ago they received a detailed 'paper' on the likely problems which could arise with a 150 mph jet powerboat. Would like to see how they cope when permission is finally requested for a 400 mph rocket boat to attempt a WSR.
This was many years ago, admittedly, (late 80's/early 90's) but I know a bit about the Planning system from my day job. wink

You'd be surprised how few and far between rocket scientists and aeronautical engineers are in local Planning departments. They rely on the advice and assurances of experts... so long as they have enough reports from specialists, and enough public liability insurance, to cover thair ass when something goes wrong, they're fairly easy to convince.

The problem with the 150mph jet boat was that it was being viewed as a very noisy and environmentally damaging regular tourist attraction, rather than a one off record attempt. That's why they eventually gave permission for a limited number of proving trials only. It wasn't that they were fundamentally against it running, it was that they wanted to avoid the possibility of it tearing up the lake 3 times daily, every weekend in summer (which is enough in itself to demonstrate how little understanding they have of the technology involved).

malcolm speed said:
The taking part in a record attempt follows from using a 'powerboating' craft, the UIM do not otherwise class jets or rockets as a race series so the reverse logic does not appear to apply.
What reverse logic?

Participation in Speed Record breaking is a form of participation in powerboating. FACT.

Pure thrust craft are well established an universally accepted. FACT.

There is a class for boats with aerial propellors, and these are NOT restricted to just record breaking, as jet/rocket boats are. FACTS

Trust me, the UIM are not stupid enough to believe that fast hydroplanes do not derive significant support from aerodynamic lift.

They specifically omitted the old rule that forbade aerodynamic stabilizers and rudders, because they recognised that they were essential to the stability of very high speed craft.

...And we all know that pure thrust boats are readily accepted.

The wording of the definition recognises that none these items on its own precludes a craft from being accepted as a 'boat', but that it must retain at least one of them to avoid becoming a pure aircraft.

The wording is carefully thought out and very clear: the word is 'or' not 'and'. That's just the way it is, whether we like it or not.



Edited by Sam_68 on Wednesday 4th May 23:51

Sam_68

9,939 posts

194 months

Wednesday 4th May 2011
quotequote all
Life Saab Itch said:
When you two make this boat, can I suggest the name "Miss England"?
Not the luckiest name in powerboating history...

We were torn between 'Infinity' (from the symbol traditionally used for unlimited class WWSR boats) and 'White Rose' ('cos we were from Yorkshire, so it would have been a two-fingered salute to the red rose of the Windermere Motorboat Racing Club).

Snoggledog

6,302 posts

166 months

Thursday 5th May 2011
quotequote all
Thank you Sam. you've put across more eloquently what I was driving at regarding WIG's. If you do happen to consider going for it again, I do have some (30+ years) experience with boats and would be happy to offer some assistance.

Life Saab Itch

Original Poster:

37,068 posts

137 months

Thursday 5th May 2011
quotequote all
Sam_68 said:
Not the luckiest name in powerboating history...

We were torn between 'Infinity' (from the symbol traditionally used for unlimited class WWSR boats) and 'White Rose' ('cos we were from Yorkshire, so it would have been a two-fingered salute to the red rose of the Windermere Motorboat Racing Club).
Fair play.

As I have said in a previous thread, if you want a fabricator/mechanic, let me know.

malcolm speed

9 posts

105 months

Saturday 14th May 2011
quotequote all
Probably the largest gathering of speed record holders/contenders will be held at the Coventry Transport Museum on Saturday June 25th. Tickets available next week. Organised by the Speed Record Club. Malcolm

Doug Ford

1 posts

95 months

Wednesday 15th February 2012
quotequote all
I am writing a book about attempts to set the world water speed record. I would like to talk with Dan Ellison. Dan can reach me at DougFordEngineering@wispertel.net


Sam_68

9,939 posts

194 months

Wednesday 15th February 2012
quotequote all
Doug, do you realise you can contact him directly via his profile? - PistonHeads will then pass an e-mail directly to his main e-mail in-box. I think you'll find that he hand out on the Yahoo speed record group, too.