![:)](https://bb2.autosport.com/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
Bloodhound Video
Advertisement
Posted 16 June 2012 - 19:19
Posted 16 June 2012 - 23:04
Oh, you meant a pump that is 800hp, not capable of supporting 800hp. Indeed.
Posted 17 June 2012 - 09:00
Posted 17 June 2012 - 11:13
Posted 17 June 2012 - 13:07
Debateable in my mind if these are the true land speed records.
IMO, the record should be limited to vehicles which are power via their wheels.
Some of these cars are nothing more than jet fighters with their wings removed. Just look at the North American Project.
Posted 17 June 2012 - 18:13
Edited by green-blood, 17 June 2012 - 18:14.
Posted 18 June 2012 - 02:50
Check out the 800hp fuel pump.
Posted 18 June 2012 - 04:09
Technically, you're a pedant.Technically, it's not a fuel pump, it's an oxidizer pump.
slider
Posted 18 June 2012 - 17:02
Posted 18 June 2012 - 17:38
Technically, it's not a fuel pump, it's an oxidizer pump.
Posted 20 June 2012 - 22:52
Technically, you're a pedant.
Posted 21 June 2012 - 04:58
Edited by Canuck, 21 June 2012 - 04:59.
Posted 21 June 2012 - 05:57
Technically, it's not a fuel pump, it's an oxidizer pump. The Cosworth engine drives a pump that flows peroxide over a metal catalyst bed. As the peroxide (H2O2) flows past the metal catalyst bed, it decomposes into super hot steam (H2O) and oxygen (O2). The super hot steam and oxygen then flow through a solid fuel propellant body producing combustion. The actual solid fuel is a rubber compound HTPB (Hydroxyl-Terminated Polybutadiene).
The huge additional thrust from the Bloodhound rocket engine is only needed for about 20 seconds, as the car accelerates through transonic conditions. The hybrid rocket engine design (peroxide/HTPB) used by Bloodhound is nothing new. Normally these rocket engines use a compressed helium "blow-down" system to pump the peroxide over the catalyst bed. But for some reason the Bloodhound designers felt using a Cosworth F1 engine was a better solution for driving the oxidizer pump.
slider
Posted 21 June 2012 - 06:09
Posted 21 June 2012 - 06:15
Posted 21 June 2012 - 12:36
So we've got a bunch of pendants hanging around here?
Posted 21 June 2012 - 12:45
Posted 21 June 2012 - 13:45
So nobody wants to admit the shape is like the DeltaWing?
Posted 21 June 2012 - 15:12
Posted 21 June 2012 - 16:39
Much narrower front track than rear track that makes it look almost like a tripod.I don't see the similarity. And the Bloodhound has been 'out' for a few years now.
Edited by OfficeLinebacker, 21 June 2012 - 16:40.
Posted 21 June 2012 - 23:34
Posted 21 June 2012 - 23:41
Posted 22 June 2012 - 01:47
With regards to the fuel-or-oxidiser pump being driven by an F1 V8 engine, I can't understand why they just didn't use a small gas-driven turbine. Use a tiny amount of the oxidiser to create some gas to run a small turbine to run a pump, job done. A bit of testing to get the flow rates right so there's no real monitoring needed to control the flow and so on.
It just seems like an added layer of complexity that isn't needed.
Posted 22 June 2012 - 02:43
With regards to the fuel-or-oxidiser pump being driven by an F1 V8 engine, I can't understand why they just didn't use a small gas-driven turbine. Use a tiny amount of the oxidiser to create some gas to run a small turbine to run a pump, job done. A bit of testing to get the flow rates right so there's no real monitoring needed to control the flow and so on.
It just seems like an added layer of complexity that isn't needed.
Posted 22 June 2012 - 09:29
Added layer of complexity? The F1 engine solution sounds 'low tech' to me. Exactly what you want in a novel programme like this particularly where weight is not an issue, in fact I believe the opposite is true.
How the oxidiser pump is driven would be way down the list of risks so just chuck something in that doesn't need much design overhead, tick it off the list and move onto the harder things to solve.
There might be more elegant solutions but that's not the aim of this game.
Posted 23 June 2012 - 02:11
You mean you and me.
Posted 23 June 2012 - 02:26
Agree. There is enough knowledge of this technology in rocketry that I would have thought it the obvious choice. I would be interested to hear the reasons they made that choice.
Posted 23 June 2012 - 08:40
Posted 24 June 2012 - 09:09
GreenMachine,
If you think about it for a moment, the Cossie F1 engine choice makes sense in some respects. That Cossie F1 engine is actually quite lightweight and compact for its power output. It is easy to start and can be throttled up/down with excellent response. Plus it is readily available and much less expensive than a turboshaft engine on a $/HP basis.
Regards,
slider
Posted 24 June 2012 - 09:09
Sixty odd years ago F1 constructors began using Coventry Climax engines that originally powered pumps to put out fires. And here we have an F1 engine once again driving a pump, but this time to keep the fire going...
Posted 25 June 2012 - 01:15
Having said that, I would still like to see a comaparison of their Cossie with the gas generator option.
Posted 25 June 2012 - 05:06
Check out the 800hp fuel pump.
![]()
Bloodhound Video
Posted 27 June 2012 - 01:01
Posted 27 June 2012 - 02:23