Could a boat go 300 mph with conventional propulsion?

[Franklin]

Top Fuel drag hydros have run over 240 mph

Could a boat go 300 mph using props or water jets?

[Thunderhead19]

I have seen a modified hydroplane in the Guinnes book that I seem to recall was unofficially clocked at around 350 one way. It was some Aussie....

[Franklin]

www.kenwarby.com

That wasn't a "modified" hydroplane.

That was a scratch-built purpose-designed boat built to break the World Water Speed Record using a turbojet engine.

[mackid068]

That could be done, theoretically.

[asathor]

In think flying will be more comfortable at those speeds.......

[Daniel Charles]

It is definitely possible to go above 300 miles per hour of the water. It has been done, on october 8, 1978, when Ken Warby reached 317,6mph onboard his jet powered Spirit of Australia. This record still stands, I believe

[mackid068]

Hmm. On flat water with a few outboards, you couuld certainly reach 200, maybe 300.

[SamSam]

Top Fuel drag hydros have run over 240 mph

Could a boat go 300 mph using props or water jets?


Coulda, woulda, shouda. Aparrently they have a long way to go on the toughest part (the last 95 mph) to make 300 mph. Sam
http://www.russwicks.com/records.htm

[Franklin]

Coulda, woulda, shouda. Aparrently they have a long way to go on the toughest part (the last 95 mph) to make 300 mph. Sam
http://www.russwicks.com/records.htm

Unlimited hydroplanes are not "unlimited." For example, one could build a similar hull (by the way, Miss Budweiser now holds the record at 220 mph) but with TWO turbines (as many tractor pullers do).

[Franklin]

It is definitely possible to go above 300 miles per hour of the water. It has been done, on october 8, 1978, when Ken Warby reached 317,6mph onboard his jet powered Spirit of Australia. This record still stands, I believe

Of course it's possible. The question was could you do it with some form of water based conventional propulsion instead of a turbojet?

[mackid068]

I would think so, if you had ENOUGH of the propulsion systems and enough horsepower. Take a few waterjets and splice them together, but seriously, enough waterjets with a big gasoline engine should do fine on flat freshwater.

[SamSam]

Unlimited hydroplanes are not "unlimited." For example, one could build a similar hull (by the way, Miss Budweiser now holds the record at 220 mph) but with TWO turbines (as many tractor pullers do).

That's sort of like the supposed "World Series". I was just trying to bring the topic back on track, which was about PROPELLER or JET DRIVE driven things. Do Miss Bud and competitors use props? Aside from that, I remember going to 2 unlimited races, Detroit in the early 60's and San Diego in the mid 70's when the boats still used surplus WWII B52 engines. I think they were straight 12's or V12's with short individual exhaust pipes that looked to be 8" diameter. Helen Keller would have known one of those was coming, it shook your insides. To go back to the question, to ask COULD a boat do it is sort of pointless, seeing as how all the money, talent, time and lives expended on the quest so far have only gotten to 205-220 mph. If all it took was more horsepower and more money, then someone COULDA done it, and I think they WOULDA done it, and if they didn't, they SHOULDA done it and saved everyone else all the time, trouble, money and lives it will take to actully do it. Once it's done I suppose the question will be can a boat go 400 mph ? Sam

[mackid068]

B-52 engines? WWII, no, not connected. But, sure, you CERTAINLY could use a jet drive or propeller. Certainly could! 400 mph? I guess so, if the boat planed fast enough, had powerful enough powerplants, good propellors/impellers, lowest weight possible (remote control, perhaps?). Basically, it'd have to be a piece of carbon fiber with a few (read: 5+) outboards or jet drives.

[Franklin]

That's sort of like the supposed "World Series". I was just trying to bring the topic back on track, which was about PROPELLER or JET DRIVE driven things. Do Miss Bud and competitors use props? Aside from that, I remember going to 2 unlimited races, Detroit in the early 60's and San Diego in the mid 70's when the boats still used surplus WWII B52 engines. I think they were straight 12's or V12's with short individual exhaust pipes that looked to be 8" diameter. Helen Keller would have known one of those was coming, it shook your insides. To go back to the question, to ask COULD a boat do it is sort of pointless, seeing as how all the money, talent, time and lives expended on the quest so far have only gotten to 205-220 mph. If all it took was more horsepower and more money, then someone COULDA done it, and I think they WOULDA done it, and if they didn't, they SHOULDA done it and saved everyone else all the time, trouble, money and lives it will take to actully do it. Once it's done I suppose the question will be can a boat go 400 mph ? Sam

Top Fuel drag hydros have hit over 240 mph, still accelerating. For one thing, they have a lot more horsepower than Unlimited hydroplanes. For another thing, they're narrower and much lighter.

[Franklin]

B-52 engines? WWII, no, not connected. But, sure, you CERTAINLY could use a jet drive or propeller. Certainly could! 400 mph? I guess so, if the boat planed fast enough, had powerful enough powerplants, good propellors/impellers, lowest weight possible (remote control, perhaps?). Basically, it'd have to be a piece of carbon fiber with a few (read: 5+) outboards or jet drives.

The question to ask is do props or jet drives have an upper speed limit where no matter how much horsepower you stuff into the boat they simply can't move enough water to make the boat go any faster?

[Franklin]

B-52 engines? WWII, no, not connected. But, sure, you CERTAINLY could use a jet drive or propeller. Certainly could! 400 mph? I guess so, if the boat planed fast enough, had powerful enough powerplants, good propellors/impellers, lowest weight possible (remote control, perhaps?). Basically, it'd have to be a piece of carbon fiber with a few (read: 5+) outboards or jet drives.

If it were that easy, Ken Warby would not be the only driver to have clocked over 300 mph and lived.

[mackid068]

Hello, folks!! It can be done. Problem SOLVED.

[Franklin]

Hello, folks!! It can be done. Problem SOLVED.

Was something about "Could a boat go 300 mph with conventional propulsion?" unclear to you? Which part of "The question was could you do it with some form of water based conventional propulsion instead of a turbojet?" did you not get? Do you just not understand the difference between a hull and a propulsion system? Or do you just have a (very) short attention span?

[SamSam]

[QUOTE=mackid068]B-52 engines? WWII, no, not connected. QUOTE]

You're right, a B-52 has a plethora of JET engines. What I saw, heard and felt were piston engines. I'm not even sure where they came from but the announcer said they were WWII surplus from B somethings and I can't imagine anything else they would have been used in. Another thing that was impressive at the San Diego races was in between the hydro races they had supercharged V8 V drive SKI boat races, which after the unlimiteds were kind of anticlimatic up until they did 10 laps towing skiers. The tow ropes were at least 100' long, all the skiers were bundles of muscle and were locked in a half crouch, drenched and almost hidden in the rooster tails, using every ounce of strength and concentration to keep from falling. When they did fall they would be going horizontal for the longest time, during which they curled up into a ball. After 4 or 5 skips across the water like a flat rock the ball shape would start coming apart and the water would start grabbing their arms and legs until they finally cartwheeled into a horrendous finale like a 90mph bellyflop. That they survived that plus all the other boats and skiers going by till the end of the race was amazing. California ( The End Of The Western World) invented bikers, drag racing, skateboards, windsurfing, hot tubs, go-carts, hippies and who knows what else, they sure know how to have some fun. Sam

[mackid068]

"Was something about "Could a boat go 300 mph with conventional propulsion?" unclear to you? Which part of "The question was could you do it with some form of water based conventional propulsion instead of a turbojet?" did you not get? Do you just not understand the difference between a hull and a propulsion system? Or do you just have a (very) short attention span?"

Hey, relax... It can be done. Flat bottom, lots of outboards or jet drives...flat water. Carbon fiber body? No problem.

[sideditch]

Yes, this can be done, just needs a little funding to prove; then a lot of funding to do it. Could easily approach 600 mph.

Question is to keep this technology secret or not.

Regards,

Sideditch.

ps Hint: over run designed bearings to be used.

[Franklin]

Yes, this can be done, just needs a little funding to prove; then a lot of funding to do it. Could easily approach 600 mph.

Question is to keep this technology secret or not.

Regards,

Sideditch.

ps Hint: over run designed bearings to be used.

Don't get ahead of yourself. No one has run 400 mph with a boat let alone 600 mph. Three (Bluebird, Discovery II, Rain-X Record Challenger) of the five boats to arguably go over 300 mph have crashed.

[sideditch]

Need contacts for above contenders that crashed or pictures to see elements iof their design.

Thanks,

Kindest regards for your response.

Sideditch

[Franklin]

Need contacts for above contenders that crashed or pictures to see elements iof their design.

Thanks,

Kindest regards for your response.

Sideditch

http://www.lesliefield.com/galleries/donald_campbell_and_bluebird.htm

http://www.users.myisp.co.uk/~climengs/bluebird/coniston.htm

http://www.americanjetcars.com/arfons/craig/carf4.htm

http://www.americanjetcars.com/arfons/craig/carf5.htm

[safewalrus]

why would you want to?

[sideditch]

Franklin, thanks for your attention.

Your interest must be keen upon watercraft of all types.

First: Go to www.zd.net click on downloads, select search: Webferret
then click download, shoud be about 2 to five minutes. try it, then get back to me.
Further details: one way bearings allow the shaft to turn in only one direction.

Thus, then torque is no longer required, it is released and the high speed drive aspects take over. The theme is to PULL, not push, Remember the rock in the stream,, the down stream flow effects? Think Tadpole,, stabilizes the flow around the rock.

Imagine a water skier hanging on to a runaway towboat, now how will he control it?

Now Take a ribbon, simple huh, twist it (what rotation?) insert it into a venturi shell, with a torque component of bearing capable of releasing at high speed ( no torque) voila..

Are we, getting there. Sounds simpe. the details are about as simple.

Regards,

Sideditch

PS Guess I got too much time on my hands?

[BOATMIK]

Hi All,

Just a parallel thought. I believe one of the speed limiting factors of propeller driven aircraft is when the tips of the prop approach the speed of sound.

From memory the fastest prop driven aircraft were able to reach about 550mph. The speed of sound - approx 700mph.

So speed was approx approx 0.8mach.

So if this reasoning is OK and speed of sound in water is over 4 times that in air - then the mechanism of prop tips reaching the speed of sound does not provide a limit.

However one thing that water can do that air cannot is change its phase - ie water can turn into water vapour (yep I'm from Australia) - thus Cavitation.

I am not enough of an expert to work that out! Do supercavitating props have a limit?

I imagine one problem would be with speed range - the prop to get the boat moving would look very different from the one required to reach best speed.

I am starting to agree with sideditch - the approach of attaching a water skier to a rock already moving at 400mph obviates many of the problems - though I cannot quite grasp the one way shaft rotation argument. Perhaps (for the second time this post) I have run out of sufficient theoretical knowledge

Boatmik
www.ozemail.com.au/~storerm



(what about cavitation? ie water can change state whereas air cannot)

If I am correct that would imply some sort of theoretical l

[Franklin]

Franklin, thanks for your attention.

Your interest must be keen upon watercraft of all types.

First: Go to www.zd.net click on downloads, select search: Webferret
then click download, shoud be about 2 to five minutes. try it, then get back to me.
Further details: one way bearings allow the shaft to turn in only one direction.

Thus, then torque is no longer required, it is released and the high speed drive aspects take over. The theme is to PULL, not push, Remember the rock in the stream,, the down stream flow effects? Think Tadpole,, stabilizes the flow around the rock.

Imagine a water skier hanging on to a runaway towboat, now how will he control it?

Now Take a ribbon, simple huh, twist it (what rotation?) insert it into a venturi shell, with a torque component of bearing capable of releasing at high speed ( no torque) voila..

Are we, getting there. Sounds simpe. the details are about as simple.

Regards,

Sideditch

PS Guess I got too much time on my hands?

The question wasn't whether a boat can go 400 mph.

The question was can a boat do over 300 mph with conventional propulsion (props or water jets) instead of a turbojet or rocket.

[sideditch]

Detail clarification: yes, you seem to get the idea.

The one way bearings keep the torque portion of the propulsion unit from reversing once initial speed of above 60+mph is attained. Much like the variable pitch propeller blades. Like a centrifugal clutch these would "kick" out and lock into like pitch as high speed drive or more likely a reversed pitch adding to the drive much like the turbo fan does to an aircraft engine.
The torque unit must(?) be in the forward portion of drive to keep from being subjected to the "cavation" of high speed drive due to "no bite" on water till above 60+ mph.
By having the power pull instead of push, the control of going airborne and stability become more realistic. And we have not even mentioned hull design.

Last night I happened to pick up a boats magazine about high speed craft.
It mentioned 43ft craft weighing close to 10,000 lb. with 2190 hp. Whew, what a waste. And only cruise at about 120!
But at $490K to $700K plus, that is ridiculous.

This method I describe is basic water turbine concept. Jet pump if you will.

Thanks for listening.

Sideditch.

[FlaFranco]

Why Would You Want To??

[sideditch]

Good question, to keep up with the tadpoles in Russia, I reckon.

Seriously, the quest for fame and glory, after all the pain and suffering from
redicule, financial hardship, and those who said it couldn't be done.
Well, just to say "Kiss my Grits", ain't that reason enough>

On The other hand, the dynamics of design have many other applications, such as submarine propulsion- silent running- and high speed tactical vessels that could outrun torpedoes. Not to mention any other vessels afloat.
Just to get to the fishing gounds ahead of the"pack' would be a real head turning event.
At about 400 knots to be grammerically correct, navagating a hurricane would be no problem, just be touching the water every now and then.
The future of design is the ability to think with theory but beyond and incorporate the practical, i.e. amplification of examples of nature.

As to boat propulsion, mankind has been thinking backwards since the advent of ability to power in excess of wind speed.

Regards,

Sideditch