Successful Engine Test in UK For Planned 1000 mph Car

amkkhan writes with this excerpt from International Science Times: "Scientists aiming to create a car that can break 1,000 mph cleared a large hurdle yesterday when they successfully tested their rocket engine. The engine will power the supersonic car known as the Bloodhound SSC — meant to become the fastest car in the world. The British team tested the engine in an aircraft shelter in Newquay Cornwall Airport, originally designed to protect fighter planes from bombs. Although the data hasn't fully been analyzed, the researchers said the engine reached 30,000 horsepower during the 10-second burn. Given enough time, they expect the engine to reach 80,000 horsepower and 27,500 pounds of thrust."

Comments

Will that there engine fit in my '79 Firebird?

[crazyjj]

I just got my old girl primered and re-upholstered and I'm thinking a new engine would really make her kick ass. I got $200 and and '86 Silverado (that just needs a new transmission) that I'm willing to part with, if you're interested in selling the engine after you break that record.

Re:Will that there engine fit in my '79 Firebird?

[LordLimecat]

And apparently you build strawmen.

Re:Will that there engine fit in my '79 Firebird?

[ackthpt]

I just got my old girl primered and re-upholstered and I'm thinking a new engine would really make her kick ass.

Is your 'old girl' a rear-engine design? If not, you may be out of luck...

Firebirds of that era were front engine. I think Pontiac made anything but the Fiero with front engine and the Fiero is a frightening drive with the engine it had (I whipped out a few times in mine and it always spun around with the rear of the car going in the direction of travel. Couldn't sell that thing fast enough.)

Re:Will that there engine fit in my '79 Firebird?

[Rhacman]

With 27,500 pounds of thrust, I don't think where you mount the engine on that vehicle will affect the end result much, that is, when what's left returns to a solid phase of matter.

Re:Will that there engine fit in my '79 Firebird?

[Grishnakh]

You need to go read about the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Your incorrect assumption is that Christians follow the teachings of Christ, which is completely wrong.

Re:Will that there engine fit in my '79 Firebird?

[Sulphur]

Maybe he just wants to go backwards really fast? :)

He could call it "Crayfish 1000."

Re:Will that there engine fit in my '79 Firebird?

[Grishnakh]

People have been giving alms to the poor throughout the middle ages, and up until now. Government programs to help lift people out of poverty (such as by providing free education) have only been around perhaps 150 years or so. All that private charity did absolutely nothing to reduce or eliminate grinding poverty, yet government provision of services (mostly education) has created a giant and prosperous middle class and a strong economy in all developed nations.

Paying your taxes (to whichever part of the government funds education) does a LOT more than giving money to some charity.

Re:Will that there engine fit in my '79 Firebird?

[Grishnakh]

I stated that Jesus never commanded his people to help via government programs.

That's true, but you have to look at the context of the times. Jesus lived in a land that was under occupation by a foreign imperial power. The government that was in place didn't really do anything for the people of that area, they just took taxes and built roads and such to support their trade networks, since that's what made the empire rich. They didn't have government programs like in the modern sense, and I'm pretty sure they didn't provide an education to people in their territories either.

I'm not saying all charity is useless or anything like that, but if you really want to improve peoples' lives, there's two things that have been proven to have the biggest effect in actually eliminating poverty and helping people have better lives: the first is education, the second is health care. And both of those work a lot better when they're run by a government rather than charity services. Your family that took in homeless teens did good, but those teens would not have healthy adult lives if they had no education and were illiterate, and I'm guessing this family didn't do that for them, they just sent them to existing free government-run schools. Just keeping kids in your house for 18 years and feeding them does not turn them into healthy adults; they have to have a proper education to be an effective part of modern society, and not that many people have the ability or desire to homeschool their kids (and many who do do a terrible job of it, though lots do a great job so I'm not saying homeschooling is bad in all cases). To be a healthy adult, a child needs a good home to grow up in, and a decent education; it's really hard to achieve a decent adulthood without both. The family you speak of provided one of those when no one else would (sadly, foster care programs seem to universally suck), but the government most likely provided the other.

Re:Will that there engine fit in my '79 Firebird?

[L3370]

How about, "Render unto Caesar."

???

Re:I used to think this stuff was cool

[dave420]

This project is being used to get kids interested in science, technology, and mathematics. That's why it's being partly-funded by the government, including the loan of some Typhoon engines. It's not just rich guys going "what what" and driving like idiots - they actually put some thought into it. They tour the car model around schools and get the kids to make projects based on it. The car is also not a rocket car, but a rocket/jet hybrid. It has a rocket engine (which uses a Formula-1 car as the oxidiser pump - that in itself is pretty cool), strapped to one of the engines from a Eurofighter jet (the aforementioned Typhoon engine). It's a really fascinating project.

Re:I used to think this stuff was cool

[K. S. Kyosuke]

This project is being used to get kids interested in science, technology, and mathematics.

And what about a 1000 mpg car? Sounds much more interesting to me.

Its not a car

[Anonymous Coward]

A rocket with wheels is still just a rocket, doesn't matter where its aimed.

Re:Its not a car

[mcgrew]

Your definition of "car" is meaningless and isn't anything like Webster's. You don't seem to realize that words are used for communication, and if you simply use your own meaning of a word everyone uses, you are obfuscating, not communicating.

There's nothing in the definition of "car" that says what the method of propulsion is. This is indeed a car. Here's what a car is:

Definition of CAR
1: a vehicle moving on wheels: as
a archaic : carriage, chariot
b : a vehicle designed to move on rails (as of a railroad)
c : automobile

2: the passenger compartment of an elevator
3: the part of an airship or balloon that carries the passengers and cargo

It gave ZERO horsepower

[Brett Buck]

Pedantic, but we are among geeks - a rocket engine gives *NO* horsepower in a static test, because there is no work being done. The power is a product of the thrust and the speed times some constant to get it in the desired units. No speed = no power.

      They claim to get 80,000 hp at 1000 mph - that's about 30,000 lbs of thrust, which is reasonably consistent with the claimed final thrust. They could have just said that.

        Brett

Re:It gave ZERO horsepower

[timeOday]

Pedantic, but we are among geeks - a rocket engine gives *NO* horsepower in a static test, because there is no work being done.

Well, it is accelerating its fuel and oxidizer to a great speed out the back. We seldom think of a rocket as a big gas cannon that just happens to have a lot of recoil, but it wouldn't be incorrect.

Re:It gave ZERO horsepower

[AmiMoJo]

Au contraire! They slightly accelerated/slowed* the rotation of the earth.

* I don't know which way it was pointing, hopefully not north.

Re:It gave ZERO horsepower

[GameboyRMH]

Oooooh! Out-pedanted, GP!

Google should partner to make it driverless

[NinjaTekNeeks]

I'm all for cool science projects but at those speeds I think we can assume any accident will be fatal, especially if the fuel ignites. Why not partner with the google team to make it autonomous, it would be great press for google and would generate buzz for the project.

Not A Car

[Anonymous Coward]

When a vehicle's primary means of forward momentum is no longer via the transmission of energy to the ground through wheels but instead via high speed ejection of gasses through a jet exhaust, it should no longer be considered a car. It's a rocket sled.

Re:I used to think this stuff was cool

[Ogi_UnixNut]

But far more boring to most kids. I admit, it sounds pretty boring to me too, even if it is the more responsible goal to aim for. The UK has a problem with getting kids interested in the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Maths). Most kids love explosions, fire, noise and power. You lecture them on how you can make a car go 1000 miles on a gallon of fuel, and most would probably fall asleep.

This however, is fast, noisy, pushes science/engineering to its limits, and shoots a massive jet of fire out the back, what's not to love? It gets kids excited, which is its primary goal, it is an excellent world showcase for the high-technology design/manufacturing that the UK still has, and installs some pride in the UK populace. It is not a blueprint for all future cars, so the fact it gets 0.04mpg (uk gallons) is irrelevant, especially as it will probably only run a few times in its life.

Not to fret though, there are lots of challenges every year to see who can get the best mpg (I think we're up to 350mpg on diesel). Different strokes for different folks and all that. There is a lot of work on both sides of the fence :)

Re:I used to think this stuff was cool

[somersault]

I guess I'm maybe speaking to the wrong crowd since Americans are really into their drag racing, but I prefer cars that can turn corners well too. I love rallying and other types of motor racing. There's little practical purpose in being able to go over 200mph in a car though, given current roads. And you can still have flames shooting out of the exhaust in an ICE :D

Re:Darwin Award Winner...

[compro01]

These guys have built the last 3 recordholding cars and drove them too. I am confidant they know what they're doing.

Re:I used to think this stuff was cool

[__aaeihw9960]

But for a twelve year old kid, there's just something about the idea of strapping yourself to a missile for no other reason than to go really, really, really fast. Turns are great, and I agree, but come on - 1,000 mph? I'd do it, and I'm a full-grown human. Now imagine being a little kid and seeing this thing tearing ass across the desert.

In the words of the immortal bard, Shakespeare, "FUCK YEAH."

Is it just me...

[Grundibular]

...or do all these land speed records seem to boil down to just how fast you can scrape a de-winged jet aircraft along the ground?

The "not built here" lobby

[fiannaFailMan]

I've got plenty of karma so I'm just going to say it.

I've just been scrolling through the "what's the point" posts and all I can say is get the fuck over yourselves. If this thing were built in America you'd be calling it the greatest thing since the outside toilet. Same as how you pissed on Concorde, one of the greatest technical achievements of the 20th century, after you didn't get your act together with your own SST projects. Same s how you defend your suckiness at soccer by claiming "oh but we don't care about that game anyway."

But you know what? The Brits have made the land speed record their thing. I say good on them and I have to ask what ground-breaking records have you broken from the comfort of your mother's basement lately?

Lighten up, you depressing fucks!

Re:I used to think this stuff was cool

[Anonymous Coward]

This project is being used to get kids interested in science, technology, and mathematics.

And what about a 1000 mpg car? Sounds much more interesting to me.

Wrong room. You want down the hall, 3rd on left. This is the room for the 1000 gpm car.

Re:I used to think this stuff was cool

[Bob the Super Hamste]

If you want to see a raw speed challenge that uses a number of reciprocating piston engines you should go check out speed week at the Bonneville Salt Flats. I don't know how many rocket or jet vehicles compete but there are a number of regular vehicles (cars, trucks, motorcycles) and a ton of categories to compete in. I would love to go some day when I complete my project car.

Re:What's the point?

[jareth-0205]

Does it provide new insights into the science invlved, such as aerodynamics?

Actually, yes. It's extremely difficult to keep a car level with that much thrust, and not flying or burying itself. Also, before ThrustSSC nobody really knew what would happen with the sonic boom and how it would interact with the ground, reflect back onto the car, etc.

Also... it's *awesome*! Do we stop doing cool stuff because there's no immediate benefit??

Re:Shouldn't the title actually say 1609kph?

[Anonymous Coward]

The UK uses pretty much every unit going:
miles/hour for speed (of cars) but m/s for most other speeds
miles for car based distance - but metres and cm for most other measurements (car/lorry heights are usually in feet)
feet and inches for peoples' heights (and penises)
stone for peoples weight, but kg for almost all foodstuffs, if you go fishing they generally still use ounce and pounds
litres for most things, except milk and beer - then its pints
fuel efficiency is usually in miles per gallon - but petrol is sold by the litre

There's a bunch of others but we use a messed up amalgamation of imperial and metric.

Re:I used to think this stuff was cool

[TheRaven64]

Actually, they're not. Boats are much more efficient for cargo, but a fast boat from the UK to the USA takes over a week. That means that you need to take enough food for a week, have enough space to keep people entertained for a week, have people employed to clean the cabins en voyage and so on. Your passengers also have to be able to spare a week or two each way for the journey. Boats are fine for short trips, although loading and unloading can quickly become a bottleneck, which drives up the cost because harbour space is a finite resource.

Re:Horsepower?

[TheRaven64]

You have solved the first part of the puzzle. The second part is working out how to fit them all into a car.

Re:Rockets have kicked in yo

[idontgno]

I dunno. Will the vehicles be reduced to a fine gel, or will there be chunks and perhaps a few whole vehicles? The former would be traffic jelly; the latter would, in fact, be traffic jam.

Re:What's the point?

[Spad]

Because it's fucking awesome and nobody has done it before.

When did doing cool things out of curiosity become so derided?

Re:Shouldn't the title actually say 1609kph?

[Spad]

Because we like to confuse visitors by using a random mixture of Imperial and Metric measurements where ever possible.

Re:Shouldn't the title actually say 1609kph?

[itsdapead]

Last I heard British motor ways still had speeds posted in mph. Don't ask me why.

Because although anybody doing anything important in the UK uses metric units, and a whole generation of us educated in the 70s were never even taught Imperial units (fucked if I know or care how many feet there are in a mile), the Government lost it's bottle and gave in to a bunch of market-stall holders and right-wing tabloid campaigns before consigning Imperial units to the deep, dark hole in which they belong.

At one stage, the standard size for wooden boards was 6'x4'x25mm... Sad.

Re:I used to think this stuff was cool

[Grishnakh]

I have to agree, this project is a total waste of time. It's really nothing more than sticking an aircraft engine in a car. We have lots of places that can go faster than 1000 mph; we've been building mach 2+ planes for decades now. The SR-71 could go Mach 3 IIRC, and that was built in the late 50s or early 60s. There's no point in making a "car" that goes that fast, when you can only do it at the Bonneville Salt Flats, and it has zero practical application. It's not like we can make passenger cars go any faster safely. Even if we went to all-driverless robotic cars, they're not going to drive that much faster than people-driven cars, and lots of cars today can go 150mph easily, there's no technical challenge there. Just go buy a BMW or a Ferrari or a Lamborghini and you're done.

So they've done a successful test of a turbine engine. Am I supposed to be impressed by this? We've been building jet engines this powerful (and more) for decades now. Any modern fighter jet has an engine at least this powerful. You want a powerful jet engine? Go buy one from Pratt & Whitney or Rolls-Royce. They make tons of them. It's nothing special. Oh, it's a rocket engine? Whoopee, we've been building rocket engines much more powerful than this for decades too. And why on earth would you build a rocket engine for an earth-bound vehicle, where oxygen in the atmosphere is plentiful?

If they wanted to do something interesting and useful, they'd build an electric vehicle, or some kind of automated people transport, something that shows where technology is headed.

The engine isn't the problem.

[Animats]

The engine isn't the problem. There are many aircraft engines powerful enough. The problem is keeping the "car" stably in contact with the ground. Really, anything going that fast is an aircraft. The aerodynamic forces dominate.

Finding a long enough flat area to run the thing is getting hard. The Bonneville Salt Flats aren't big enough any more. The last few land speed record efforts moved to Black Rock Desert, and this one is planned for the Hakskeen Pan dry lake bed in South Africa.

Rails work better than salt flats. Holloman USAF Base has a 10-mile high speed test rail track for rocket sled tests. The speed record there is 6,481 MPH.

Re:I used to think this stuff was cool

[Jonathan A]

This is the room for the 1000 gpm car.

LOL. I read that as 1000 gallons per minute. :)

Re:Horsepower?

[jimshatt]

Metric or imperial horses?

Re:I used to think this stuff was cool

[TheRaven64]

An unmanned boat would not really make sense for carrying passengers...