Landracing Forum

Thrust-powered Land Speed information => Discussions on absolute land speed records => Topic started by: J79 on May 11, 2016, 02:36:00 PM

Title: Why is the Bloodhound Car using Turbine & Rocket? Why not Rocket only?
Post by: J79 on May 11, 2016, 02:36:00 PM
Why are they choosing to use the size and weight of the Turbine and the Rocket for power? Why not Rocket power only? Seems like you could make the car smaller and less complicated if they went with Rocket power only and eliminated the Turbine Engine.

http://www.bloodhoundssc.com/
Title: Re: Why is the Bloodhound Car using Turbine & Rocket? Why not Rocket only?
Post by: TrickyDicky on May 11, 2016, 03:43:44 PM
The driver understands turbines from his day job. He also is not keen on sitting in front of a large firework.

Which part of Bloodhound is not yet fitted to the car because it is still under development?
Title: Re: Why is the Bloodhound Car using Turbine & Rocket? Why not Rocket only?
Post by: J79 on May 11, 2016, 07:24:47 PM
From what I remember from watching one of the Bloodhound videos is that they use the Turbine to 300mph, then turn on the Afterburner and Rocket. You would think that with the weight of the Turbine on top of the Rocket, it would be unstable, as in more stable if the Turbine was removed.
Title: Re: Why is the Bloodhound Car using Turbine & Rocket? Why not Rocket only?
Post by: kiwi belly tank on May 11, 2016, 10:40:15 PM
What's your background in unlimited LSR jet cars?
  Sid.
Title: Re: Why is the Bloodhound Car using Turbine & Rocket? Why not Rocket only?
Post by: J79 on May 11, 2016, 11:45:17 PM
If you are asking me, I've never built or driven one. Just a long time casual interest. A Turbine on top seems top heavy and unnecessarily complicated when a Rocket alone would seem simpler.

Look at Blue Flame or the Budweiser Rocket Car. They seem much simpler than a Turbine Engine.

Does a Turbine powered thrust car want to steer or roll to one direction due to the spinning of the Turbine Engine?

How about you? What's your experience in LSR cars?

Title: Re: Why is the Bloodhound Car using Turbine & Rocket? Why not Rocket only?
Post by: F104A on May 12, 2016, 03:29:41 PM
NO
Title: Re: Why is the Bloodhound Car using Turbine & Rocket? Why not Rocket only?
Post by: Seldom Seen Slim on May 12, 2016, 07:40:29 PM
Sid, may I?

J79, yes, Kiwi Sid does have SOME :roll: :evil: :roll: :evil: :roll: experience with LSR cars.
Title: Re: Why is the Bloodhound Car using Turbine & Rocket? Why not Rocket only?
Post by: J79 on May 12, 2016, 08:19:55 PM
NO

Is your comment, "No, a Turbine powered thrust car does not want to steer or roll to one direction due to the spinning of the Turbine Engine?"
Title: Re: Why is the Bloodhound Car using Turbine & Rocket? Why not Rocket only?
Post by: Glen on May 12, 2016, 09:37:37 PM
What is your problem J79. I don't think you have done much research on jet or turbine vehicles. :dhorse:
Title: Re: Why is the Bloodhound Car using Turbine & Rocket? Why not Rocket only?
Post by: F104A on May 12, 2016, 10:42:32 PM
I can't speak for others but when my J-79 reaches 100%, that is 7400 rpm. I actually leave the starting line at about 80 to 90% and within about 1/4 mile I'm
at 100%. There is no feeling of torque roll at all. When you go into afterburner, all it does is dump loads of fuel into the aft area behind the hot section and the rpm's
do not increase, if so it is only few a couple percentage points. All the AB does is increase thrust. IF, for some horrible reason the engine seized, you would get significant
torque roll and that would be a bad event, just as if you were flying it rather than driving it. There is no real reason to seize your engine if you are paying attention to any of the engine
indicators such as EGT, oil temp, oil press, and rpm's.
Title: Re: Why is the Bloodhound Car using Turbine & Rocket? Why not Rocket only?
Post by: J79 on May 12, 2016, 11:15:16 PM
I can't speak for others but when my J-79 reaches 100%, that is 7400 rpm. I actually leave the starting line at about 80 to 90% and within about 1/4 mile I'm
at 100%. There is no feeling of torque roll at all. When you go into afterburner, all it does is dump loads of fuel into the aft area behind the hot section and the rpm's
do not increase, if so it is only few a couple percentage points. All the AB does is increase thrust. IF, for some horrible reason the engine seized, you would get significant
torque roll and that would be a bad event, just as if you were flying it rather than driving it. There is no real reason to seize your engine if you are paying attention to any of the engine
indicators such as EGT, oil temp, oil press, and rpm's.

If you were to stand at the exhaust end and facing forward, which way does the compressor and turbine turn, clockwise or counterclockwise?

I read that Art Arfons had a few high speed tire blowouts on his Green Monster Thrust Powered Turbine Car. Were these tire blowouts due to the torque of the turbine, or due to normal stresses at high speed? 

Title: Re: Why is the Bloodhound Car using Turbine & Rocket? Why not Rocket only?
Post by: kiwi belly tank on May 13, 2016, 12:42:29 AM
Sid, may I?

J79, yes, Kiwi Sid does have SOME :roll: :evil: :roll: :evil: :roll: experience with LSR cars.

Thank you......thankyouverymuch! :-D
  Sid.
Title: Re: Why is the Bloodhound Car using Turbine & Rocket? Why not Rocket only?
Post by: Robin UK on May 13, 2016, 03:52:26 AM
J79 - you are clearly interested in thrust driven vehicles so let me help here in terms of engaging with the people on this forum.

First, most are well aware of the BloodhoundSSC project (even if their primary interest is wheel driven vehicles) so the links you've posted have already been covered and are old news. There is a thread elsewhere where any new stuff from them is referenced.

Second, the question you ask about why they've chosen a mixed power plant design is answered on their own website. Poke around a bit more and you'll find the answer - think it's in one of Andy's updates. As to the simpler jet or rocket designs you mention, well that's the beauty of having rules that encourage a multitude of solutions. There is no right or wrong way, only your way based on the your view of how best to solve the problem of going fast. And the only way of testing the validity of your solution is to build and run the vehicle and beat an existing record. If you hold a record, then that's the right way. Until somebody else comes along and beats it with a different solution.

The rotational effect you mention does exist and it did indeed cause Art some issues because he was a jet car pioneer so the extra forces exerted on wheel bearings, tyres and so on weren't fully understood back then by everybody. But other jet cars ran successfully and by now designers are well aware of it and know how to cater for it - hence Ed's succinct response.

Finally, most people here would use the word Turbine to describe an engine with a drive shaft attached to it. Yes they work on pretty much the same principles as a pure jet engine, but the exhaust gas driven output shaft connected to something makes it a turbine. the Turbinator team hold the current wheel driven record with a turbine engine. Sid knows a bit about this.  8-) BloodhoundSSC and its predecessors Thrust2 and ThrustSSC use pure jets so Jet is the description they and most others would use.

Hope this helps.

Robin

Title: Re: Why is the Bloodhound Car using Turbine & Rocket? Why not Rocket only?
Post by: kiwi belly tank on May 13, 2016, 11:15:14 AM
Pull up a chair & a beverage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_F3I9emgfKs
Title: Re: Why is the Bloodhound Car using Turbine & Rocket? Why not Rocket only?
Post by: wobblywalrus on May 13, 2016, 08:26:15 PM
The Bloodhound project is a bit of a gamble.  It is extremely complicated from a systems engineering viewpoint - with a high C of G compared to track width.  These are obstacles.  The chances of a problem that cannot be overcome during operations in the field are greater.  That can be compensated to some degree by good quality control and thorough engineering.  They cannot be fully eliminated.

The flip side of the gamble is that enough systems work adequately to set a record that will not be surpassed for a long time.  Also, a team goal is to showcase engineering.  The many systems do a good job of that.  It is an admirable effort.
Title: Re: Why is the Bloodhound Car using Turbine & Rocket? Why not Rocket only?
Post by: Dynoroom on May 13, 2016, 08:31:00 PM
Not to mention they have been successful twice before. Some might say 4 times...
Title: Re: Why is the Bloodhound Car using Turbine & Rocket? Why not Rocket only?
Post by: tortoise on May 13, 2016, 09:01:07 PM
It is an admirable effort.
Well, sure. But complexity is not intrinsically more admirable than simplicity.
Title: Re: Why is the Bloodhound Car using Turbine & Rocket? Why not Rocket only?
Post by: J79 on May 13, 2016, 10:39:35 PM
Here are Andy Greens diaries from the Bloodhound website. Looks like one per month April 16 2016-July 2009, around 80 of them. http://www.bloodhoundssc.com/andygreen?page=6 (http://www.bloodhoundssc.com/andygreen?page=6) Instead of me reading each one of them, which is very time consuming, do you know which one describes why Bloodhound has chosen to run a Turbine and a Rocket versus Rocket only or why they have made that choice?

Does anyone know the answer to the question?

J79 - you are clearly interested in thrust driven vehicles so let me help here in terms of engaging with the people on this forum.

First, most are well aware of the BloodhoundSSC project (even if their primary interest is wheel driven vehicles) so the links you've posted have already been covered and are old news. There is a thread elsewhere where any new stuff from them is referenced.

Second, the question you ask about why they've chosen a mixed power plant design is answered on their own website. Poke around a bit more and you'll find the answer - think it's in one of Andy's updates. As to the simpler jet or rocket designs you mention, well that's the beauty of having rules that encourage a multitude of solutions. There is no right or wrong way, only your way based on the your view of how best to solve the problem of going fast. And the only way of testing the validity of your solution is to build and run the vehicle and beat an existing record. If you hold a record, then that's the right way. Until somebody else comes along and beats it with a different solution.

The rotational effect you mention does exist and it did indeed cause Art some issues because he was a jet car pioneer so the extra forces exerted on wheel bearings, tyres and so on weren't fully understood back then by everybody. But other jet cars ran successfully and by now designers are well aware of it and know how to cater for it - hence Ed's succinct response.

Finally, most people here would use the word Turbine to describe an engine with a drive shaft attached to it. Yes they work on pretty much the same principles as a pure jet engine, but the exhaust gas driven output shaft connected to something makes it a turbine. the Turbinator team hold the current wheel driven record with a turbine engine. Sid knows a bit about this.  8-) BloodhoundSSC and its predecessors Thrust2 and ThrustSSC use pure jets so Jet is the description they and most others would use.

Hope this helps.

Robin


Title: Re: Why is the Bloodhound Car using Turbine & Rocket? Why not Rocket only?
Post by: PorkPie on May 14, 2016, 09:11:53 AM
..............if you ask when (and where).....6th April 1988....Hampton Court.....................

there is also an answer to why...... :-D



Here are Andy Greens diaries from the Bloodhound website. Looks like one per month April 16 2016-July 2009, around 80 of them. http://www.bloodhoundssc.com/andygreen?page=6 (http://www.bloodhoundssc.com/andygreen?page=6) Instead of me reading each one of them, which is very time consuming, do you know which one describes why Bloodhound has chosen to run a Turbine and a Rocket versus Rocket only or why they have made that choice?

Does anyone know the answer to the question?


Title: Re: Why is the Bloodhound Car using Turbine & Rocket? Why not Rocket only?
Post by: TrickyDicky on May 14, 2016, 09:40:05 AM
In the very early stages of the Project, BLOODHOUND SSC was intended to be purely rocket-powered. While this offered certain performance advantages, rockets are not as easy to control as jets, so it was decided to combine both powerplants to gain power and control.
 
In order to accelerate the car to 1000mph, each Nammo hybrid rocket will provide a thrust of 30kN (6,000 lbs). This will be combined with the thrust from the EJ200 jet to generate about 212kN (47,700lbs) - that's eight times more power than all the cars on a Formula 1 starting grid combined.

The Nammo rocket will be used instead of the Falcon Project rocket which proved the concept of using a hybrid rocket in BLOODHOUND. The design of the Nammo rocket is still being finalised, but it is likely to have a cluster of four or five motors rather than a single large combustion chamber.


The above is a quote from the Bloodhound web site.

I have heard Ron Ayers explaining the design concept several times, but cannot remember all the details. In no particular order, the following are factors:


As with many things in life, it's a compromise. Others are going down the rocket-only route but I don't think they will be ready to break the current record before Bloodhound SSC.

J79, you are still referring to Turbine instead of Jet. This suggests you are not reading and understanding other posts. In particular, Robin UK provided some sage advice on how to engage with members of this forum. 
 :dhorse:  :dhorse: :dhorse:
Title: Re: Why is the Bloodhound Car using Turbine & Rocket? Why not Rocket only?
Post by: TrickyDicky on May 14, 2016, 09:53:01 AM
Not to mention they have been successful twice before. Some might say 4 times...

OK, I bite. Thrust 2 set the record on one occasion and Thrust SSC twice. Why might some say 4 times?
Title: Re: Why is the Bloodhound Car using Turbine & Rocket? Why not Rocket only?
Post by: Seldom Seen Slim on May 14, 2016, 10:02:04 AM
Don't I remember that there was a set of runs that set record speeds - but the team took just a minute or so over the 1 hour - - so all was for naught?

Would that the #4?
Title: Re: Why is the Bloodhound Car using Turbine & Rocket? Why not Rocket only?
Post by: TrickyDicky on May 14, 2016, 10:13:10 AM
Don't I remember that there was a set of runs that set record speeds - but the team took just a minute or so over the 1 hour - - so all was for naught?

Would that the #4?

Ah, yes. You are correct Jon. Two days before the official supersonic record they made a pair of runs at 760+ mph, but the time between them was 49.6 seconds over the permitted hour (it says here).
Title: Re: Why is the Bloodhound Car using Turbine & Rocket? Why not Rocket only?
Post by: kiwi belly tank on May 14, 2016, 10:28:58 AM
Been there & done that on FIA records before, man does rip your feet out from under you! :cry:
  Sid.
Title: Re: Why is the Bloodhound Car using Turbine & Rocket? Why not Rocket only?
Post by: BHR301 on May 14, 2016, 12:42:59 PM
TrickyDicky.....

"J79, you are still referring to Turbine instead of Jet. This suggests you are not reading and understanding other posts. In particular, Robin UK provided some sage advice on how to engage with members of this forum.  "

The General Electric J79 is an axial-flow turbojet engine..do you have a different definition of a jet engine?

Bill
Title: Re: Why is the Bloodhound Car using Turbine & Rocket? Why not Rocket only?
Post by: Dynoroom on May 14, 2016, 11:31:59 PM
Slim gets it...  ;)
Title: Re: Why is the Bloodhound Car using Turbine & Rocket? Why not Rocket only?
Post by: tallguy on May 15, 2016, 02:01:51 AM
Awesome video, Kiwi.  Thanks for providing it.  I have been "following" the
absolute land speed record for decades, and knew about these cars and
teams, but hadn't seen that particular video yet.  It was informative.

tallguy
(in northern California)
Title: Re: Why is the Bloodhound Car using Turbine & Rocket? Why not Rocket only?
Post by: TrickyDicky on May 15, 2016, 04:56:52 AM
TrickyDicky.....

"J79, you are still referring to Turbine instead of Jet. This suggests you are not reading and understanding other posts. In particular, Robin UK provided some sage advice on how to engage with members of this forum.  "

The General Electric J79 is an axial-flow turbojet engine..do you have a different definition of a jet engine?

Bill

Bill,

I think we have a misunderstanding. I was referring to J79 the poster who started this thread and has asked several further questions.

On definitions, I was going with Robin UK's input, i.e. a General Electric J79 might be referred to as a "jet"when providing thrust but a "turbine" when configured to provide drive through the wheels.
Title: Re: Why is the Bloodhound Car using Turbine & Rocket? Why not Rocket only?
Post by: JulesT on September 28, 2016, 05:29:07 PM
At the risk of resurrecting an old post..... The EJ200 jet engine Bloodhound is using has counter rotating blades to ensure there are no undue forces affecting the car.

The jet engine is easily throttleable and enables the team to conduct much of the low speed testing - up to 600mph without the need or expense of the rocket (oxidizer can be pricey stuff at high concentration).

The EJ200 is the most power dense jet ever, it weighs just one tonne so it's positioning in the car is less crucial than the position of the cluster of hybrid rockets.

JT