Other Speed Record Breakers Are Available!

[polo]

Noseying about on the web I found this:
waterspeedrecord
I have a hull that can be on the water in a few months. We have a proven outrigger design with current ihba and sdba et records as well as the fastest propeller driven pass @ 270.2mph. Set up with a gas turbine and twin prop gearbox this hull will run for both records,(propeller and outright). Currently seaking sponsor $. we do not need to design engineer and test as we have a proven safety record with 4+ years on the track passes @ 250+mph. I have current sponsors for most components but need funding for the record. I am a 1 man garage operation that has an actual hull that can be seen at www.ellisonraceconcepts.com Thanks, Dan

I didn't reply on the site and I couldn't access the photos. Site looks impressive.
I don't know if anyone has told Dan that the record is done over a kilo or mile, yet and that is a totally different prospect to driving a 1/4 mile flat out.
My info was that Craig Breedlove's boat was designed on the 'sprint' boat technology and we know what unfortunately happened there.

[polo]

And another!!
water speed assaults
Canada's in the same race. A women pilot will b @ the control. jst 2 let u no. keep ur eyes open.

I couldn't copy all the site the 'puter wouldn't let me!

[polo]

these 'puters are great..have a look at this site..can anyone please explain it to me!!??
North American World Water Speed Record Challenger | Facebook
North American World Water Speed Record Challenger Checkout project Bluebird on youtube. See what the team who found her is doing. ...
de-de.facebook.com/...World-Water-Speed-Record.../203220992561 - Germany

[polo]

have a look at this site. go to world speed records, before you do make sure you have your sound on and high..it will bring tears to your eyes! be proud of it!

http://www.andytyler.net

Some bits of those last few posts don't even make sense...and no need to create new topics when something fits under an existing one. -Mike

[Blowtorch]

You know, sports fans,
I am just sick and tired of all the innuendo and drivel that spouts out on this board and others regarding how I cheated the UIM rules by using a horizontal stabilizer on Spirit of Australia.
Mr.Mitchell seems to be the self appointed expert on what "Ken Warby knew with the help of Tom Fink "
and other little gems of wisdom.
Fact is, with all of these expert assumptions, he's talking through his arse.
The UIM rule refers to......."any device that tends to "LIFT" the boat by means of an aerodynamic effect"......
Pray tell, Mr.Mitchell, what device are you referring to since the tail plane on Spirit does not????????
Nor was it ever intended to.
Then there is...."the Fink designed stabilizer"......
Fact is the tail plane was designed by me before I had even met Prof. Fink at the University of NSW in Sydney.
The next little beauty is....."Appears to have a 2-3 degree positive incidence producing lift at the stern and resultant download on the front of the boat"......
WRONG again, my friend.
In fact this was the one area that Tom Fink and I disagreed on in the whole project.
However after some detailed explanation,he saw my point of view and finally agreed with my idea.

Now, for all you armchair experts that have never jammed your butts in a really fast boat.......look and learn !!!!
Look at photos and videos of Bluebird at speed and you will see the rear shoe bouncing up and down (tramping) and the resultant uneven rooster tail height shows it.
Then do similar with Spirit of Australia and what do you see.....an even spray height and NO rear bounce. "Gee,I wonder why?????"
2-3 degree lift at the stern at very high speed will result in the wetted area, of the sponson, moving too far forward and will cause the bow to steer the boat.
An even worse situation would arise if the rudder, which only penetrates 8" into the water at speed, bounced clear on the chop that I preferred to run on losing all steering. Result....an "ohhhhh sheeeeeeeet" moment.
The answer,
A NEGATIVE incidence, producing an opposing (damping) force to the lift (and bounce on the chop) of the rear planning shoe.
Any "LIFT" that the boat required was easily obtained by the shape of the shoe and the location of the center of gravity.
You might like to know that before the tail plane was installed, a phone call was made, by me, to UIM headquarters and it was given the "All Clear".
and the UIM and I lived happily ever after. The tail plane angle is EXACTLY the same (and permanent) on Spirit of Australia and Aussie spirit and any of
you experts that want to check that out...come visit my workshop.
Tom Fink did help me figure out the angle needed for the job and he did do all the design on the intakes as well as wind tunnel the hull shape.
Tom Fink also stated, after seeing Spirit run, he believed that had Bluebird installed a tail plane with positive angle, it would have increased the rear vertical oscillation and made the boat more dangerous.
Tom and I had a wonderful relationship, with he approaching problems from a mainly theoretical angle and I from a racing one and it worked well.
You see, sports fans, sometimes things are not always what you think.
A wise man once said "You can follow the mob or think outside the box."
It is your choice as to which way you figure I went.
Have a nice day..

[Mike Bull]

Ladies and Gentlemen- Mr Ken Warby, holder for almost 32 years (and counting) of the World Water Speed Record at 317.60 MPH.

Any questions?

[sheppane]

Ladies and Gentlemen- Mr Ken Warby, holder for almost 32 years (and counting) of the World Water Speed Record at 317.60 MPH.

Any questions?

It doesn't get much better than that does it.

Ken, don't be too hard on Keith, Info on SoA this side of the world is sketchy... We are all interested enthusiasts... and it is fascinating to have your input into the debates to keep us right on this site and on Andy's...

all the best,

Neil

[sheppane]

laura3_1954_hoist.jpg

laura3_verga1_1954.jpg

Here's a real beauty... Mario Verga's Laura 3, from 1954. Powered by 2 Alfa Romeo Alfetta two-stage supercharged 1.5litre straight eight racing engines from an Alfa GP car, and totaling >800 bhp and weighing 950 kgs, she toped 190 mph before she blew over on Lake Iseo. Verga lost his life. A real contender at the time after Crusader and before K7.

[Renegadenemo]

Fantastic pics as ever, Neil. Thanks for those. And thanks also to Ken for taking the time to explain some of the finer points of SoA.
Neil is right enough - there's not to much available info over here so it's all much appreciated.

[KW Mitchell]

I feel very privileged to have my comments challenged and corrected by the great Ken Warby. I freely admit that at my time of life - and confirmed by those close to me - inadvertent emanation from my transom is occurring with increased regularity, though to describe it as speech is perhaps too fine a description ------.

My input on this subject comes from study of the literature, reports, scientific papers, books etc. and, as has already been commented, certainly can only be partial and therefore is further refined by the unique and direct intervention of someone like yourself. I have no problem putting my hands up here and saying I've got it wrong, but it was based on a genuine and honest attempt to interpret the facts as I studied them.

In relation to specifics, my comment on the tailplane on your SoA is derived from the photo(s) I posted of the craft and the apparent, and persuasive, impression is of positive incidence so one can only think there is some distortion due to perspective or whatever.

Also, I would confess I'm no expert but would claim a reasonably sound understanding of aerodynamics and hydrodynamics and my essential motive in all this business is to try and get a better understanding of how and why DMC and K7 were lost. My primary conclusion, is that K7 was operating beyond it's design limits and that stability was so marginal above 300mph that disaster was not possible but inevitable. My further speculation based on sound aerodynamics is that a horizontal stabiliser would have helped the craft achieve it's goal.

You designed, built and operated a craft which could and did achieve it's goal because you incorporated the features e.g. above, which mastered the physics whereas K7 could not. And all might I say that I've posted on this issue is to endorse and applaud that.

As to compliance with the 'Rules' you must concede that there has been very considerable debate about this and certainly DMC, Ken Norris et al would not have seen it in the same way as you as the various accounts show how they agonised eternally over them.

But, frankly, as far as I am concerned the rules - or compliance with them - isn't the issue and if that has been interpreted from my comments, it's mistaken.The only rules that have a final say when one wants to go as fast as possible in air, on land or on water are those defined by Newton, Bernoulli, Reynolds et al and we ignore them at our peril. You and your craft did not and that is why you are rightly and legitimately the World Water Speed Record Holder and have been for more than 30 years.

Yes, I include myself in that countless multitude of armchair theorists, enthusiasts, observers and commentators. We all share a common cowardice because none of us would dare strap ourselves into those 'pocket rockets' that you, DMC, Cobb and others did. But we revere you for it and are eternally inspired by the achievement. Forgive us if in our attempts to get at the truth we 'only see through the glass, darkly'.

Keith Mitchell