Beware break failure.
Cornwall, Devon and half of Somerset.
The UK's super duper 1,000mph car is being tested in Cornwall
The 1,000mph (1,609 kmph) Bloodhound supersonic car is undergoing its first test runs at Newquay Airport in Cornwall later today. Whizzing up and down the 2,744-metre runway, the Bloodhound car is planned to reach speeds of up to 200mph (322kmph). The car, built in Bristol over the last eight years by a group of enthusiastic …
-
-
Thursday 26th October 2017 14:15 GMT PickledAardvark
Re: 40 lires/sec of HTP?
Cosworth designed Formula Junior, F3 and F2 engines for a period before the DFV engine which became the heart of 3 litre Formula One in the 1970s. USA independents, VPJ, suggested to Cosworth that a 2.8 litre turbocharged DFV might work. Cosworth responded that the engine required fuel at a rate greater than an English bath tap. The DFX worked.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 1st November 2017 15:02 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Aircraft w/ no wings
He was right to mention the 263. The Me163 didn't have wheels. The Me263 was a 163 with wheels. Never got past the prototype stage but would probably have been a more effective fighter and certainly less lethal to its own pilots than the 163 was, since it had a tendency to explode on landing.
-
-
Thursday 26th October 2017 12:41 GMT JDX
Cool, but why?
Is there some useful scientific stuff here that I don't get? I'm all for the challenge for it's own sake but typically these things feed into more efficient planes/cars/engines whereas in this case I'm not sure if it's the case? Are there areas it advances our understanding I'm not seeing? If they succeed, do we then aim for a 1500mph car or will people get bored if there are no applications to "strap a jet on the back of a car"?
-
Thursday 26th October 2017 12:44 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Cool, but why?
The bloke behind it recons that 1000mph is about the fastest you can go on land "without science getting in the way".
I was surprised when I saw the headline elsewhere - 200mph? My car's limited to 155, so 200 can't be the record. Then I realised they were going for a 200mph potter about, which is quite mental.
-
Thursday 26th October 2017 12:48 GMT Ian Bush
Re: Cool, but why?
From http://www.bloodhoundssc.com/project
"The BLOODHOUND Project is a global Engineering Adventure, using a 1,000mph World Land Speed Record attempt to inspire the next generation to enjoy, explore and get involved in science, technology, engineering and mathematics."
Go and see one of their presentations. They are bloody brilliant.
-
Thursday 26th October 2017 14:22 GMT CheesyTheClown
Re: Cool, but why?
So, the answer is... no... there is no why. They simply justify it as being cool.
I’m like the guy who asked... I think it sounds nifty. It was have been much cooler if there was an application. Of course, I believe that the “before science gets in the way” argument is crap. To suggest that :
A) Getting to 1000MPH doesn’t require piles of science is silly. There is propolsion, aerodynamics, chemistry, etc... involved here already. This project wouldn’t stand a chance without tons of science.
B) 1000MPH is a ridiculous arbitrary number. If this were ancient Egypt, we’d claim an arbitrary number of cubits, elsewhere leagues, in civilization kilometers, etc... 1000MPH is of no particular scientific or engineering significance. Has any physicist ever calculated that 1000MPH is when an object must leave the ground? Did we decide a mile should be one thousandth of a magic number that is when things can’t be on the ground?
All this really did was prove that you can lay a rocket on its side and with the right structure and right shape, it would stick to the ground and hopefully go straight.
Oh... let’s not forget that it glorifies insane amounts of waste. I am generally horrified by stuff like this.
Now, a 1000MPH electric maglev or 1000MPH fuel cell powered EM pulse engine... that would be cool. But glorifying a sideways metal phalice with incredible thrust that ejects massive amounts of liquid while pushing so hard it bypasses friction that once depleted causes it to sputter out and become limp... I must admit these guys... brilliant or not are more than a little scary.
-
Thursday 26th October 2017 15:02 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Cool, but why?
The actual quote (from the Telegraph) was:
The rocket engineer explained that the 1,000 mph target came about after he calculated that it was the " physical limit you can reach on land" before "science becomes a barrier".
I assume it's not bang on 1000mph, but around there. Obviously getting to that speed requires a lot of sciencing, but I think his point was that if you go much faster everything goes skewiff
eg: is it even possible to design wheels that can take the temperature caused by air friction at those speeds?
A waste? Come off it.
-
Thursday 26th October 2017 15:22 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Cool, but why?
"The rocket engineer explained that the 1,000 mph target came about after he calculated that it was the " 'hysical limit you can reach on land" before "science becomes a barrier".'
Andy Green explaiend this on the R4 Today program this morning ... the calculations indicated that at around 1000mph thinbgs start to get a lot more complicated so "we aim to build a 1000mph car" seemed like a good publicity target for the project ... some how I think "we aim to build a car that should be able to reach 983.6mph and possibly a few mph higher"
-
-
Thursday 26th October 2017 16:59 GMT HieronymusBloggs
Re: Cool, but why?
"It's not air friction, it's rotational stresses and vibrations caused by track surface irregularities. They tend to the extreme at those speeds."
Don't forget the top of the wheel will be travelling at twice the speed of the car (while the part in contact with the ground will be at zero velocity). Air friction at 2000mph would be significant I think, although you're right about the extreme stresses.
-
-
-
-
Thursday 26th October 2017 22:09 GMT Adam 1
Re: Cool, but why?
> 1000MPH is a ridiculous arbitrary number. If this were ancient Egypt, we’d claim an arbitrary number of cubits, elsewhere leagues, in civilization kilometers, etc... 1000MPH is of no particular scientific or engineering significance.
You must be fun at parties.
I'll grant you that many cultures throughout history would have no concept of how fast 1000MPH is, but it is easy enough to convert it to the globally and time understood 0.0149% of the maximum velocity of a sheep in a vacuum.
-
Friday 27th October 2017 18:47 GMT Graham 25
Re: Cool, but why?
Lets put it this way - sicen the Rocket car Challenge hit schools, takeup of STEM subjects has rocketed and is an unqualified success.
In the 60's the Apollo programme drove takeup.
70's and early 80's it was the Space Shuttle.
Since then, nothing. Just a decline as kids had nothing to inspire them.
Bloodhound has turned that around.
Sorry, but most of your post while well intentioned is ignorant BS. If you truly are 'horrified' then you really are a snowflake.
-
-
Thursday 26th October 2017 15:42 GMT Fruit and Nutcase
Re: Cool, but why?
Go and see one of their presentations. They are bloody brilliant.
And and inspiration for the younger generation, as is this chap:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKHz7wOjb9w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsXWspo5hrc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1EHZPjLNHk
Scale up the goal (and the budget) and you have Bloodhound.
I hope Colin Furze was invited along for the event
-
-
Thursday 26th October 2017 12:51 GMT Killfalcon
Re: Cool, but why?
Primarily, it's a recruiting tool for UK mechanical engineering: it's one of those "catch the imagination" things that gets kids to think "I wanna do that when I grow up", get them into the field at large. There's also an advertising effect for UK engineering at large.
We also learn stuff that might come in handy if down the line in other applications: think about the stresses the 'airframe', the wheels, even the bearings are under: some of that will come up elsewhere (Say, if the Hyperloop turns out to be a real thing, or we ever get around to building any sort of Launch Assist thing like an orbital elevator or a launch loop).
But that's a distraction. Really, this is a "engineering is awesome" piece that promotes the sponsors, gets attention on UK engineering, and prods kids towards a career in engineering.
-
Friday 27th October 2017 20:14 GMT Gareth79
Re: Cool, but why?
The education aspect was a key part of the plan as a hook to get public funding and support.
The team would have done it purely for the challenge anyway (like climbing a mountain, "it was there") but they clearly enjoy that it's helping encourage children into STEM education, and pushing schools into teaching younger children at a more advanced level than before.
-
-
Thursday 26th October 2017 14:34 GMT AndyS
Re: Cool, but why?
I think the (very real) engineering challenge was to create a super-sonic land vehicle. All previous supersonic vehicles have been firmly in the air. Solving engineering challenges like that almost always have knock-on effects in terms of general increase in understanding of physics.
However, since that was achieved with Thrust SSC, I'm not sure exactly what science will be advanced by this incremental speed increase.
Bloody exciting though, I'll give them that!
-
Thursday 26th October 2017 20:47 GMT Anonymous Coward
@JDX: Re: Cool, but why?
JDX,
look matey boy (I assume you are a chap), it's not that complicated, because this research thing can inspire all kind of whizzy progress and new ideas.
My fabby spouse and some esteemed colleagues did some physics-y research a while ago[!], and do you know what came out of the other end? - modern radiotherapy treatment.
So why don't you try a bit of imagination, you never know where it might take you...
Anon as she doesn't like publicity, which I think is very Britishly modest eh?
-
-
Biting the hand that feeds IT
