Hypothetical aircraft to break the highspeed record

My “entry” for unlimited race !

I have developed this in great secrecy…just the team and 10 000 000 usd is missing and pilot..:) Don’t tell anyone.

This would have a weight of 4 000 lbs when racing. Anyone wanna go for it ?

R&R Merlin or 2 x 1000 hp v-8 automotive engines ( latter missing 800 hp and needs contras )….ooops span is 10400 mm.

i still dont understand why no one has mentioned the republic XF-84H, i seem to recall the americans wanted to break the sound barrier with an aeroplane and this was the result, 520 mph max speed with an 5850 hp turboprop, sounds like a hell of an aircraft, though the sound of the prob caused nausea and headaches among the groundcrew, i can see why :diablo:

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=588

check out this page, gives a fairly complete overview.

Well put stuart

I suppose one problem is attracting the public money,would they pay to see a small a/c ‘buzzing’ round….possibly!!(personally I would not fly from the UK to see them!!)Do they pay to see/hear the ‘dinosaurs’ blattering past ….yes definitely.Not many a/c at at renoare modified though and one can walk
through the pits and get a close look at some wonderful a/c.

Similar problem with frank engined racers??most available jets are just loud and those with fan engines are just ..erm… quiet!!!
If you are talking about a Hunter or Meteor making the ‘blue note’ … you got my vote;)

Also most ‘interesting’ jets have horrendous fuel consumption at low altitude.

Noise is a very subjective thing but some noises are ‘nice’,some are not.

To get back on thread… I am sure it is possible to build a record winner with new technology but then it will disappear into the record books where nobody looks,I am just not sure it would be an attractive racer at reno unless it is of a fairly imposing size with a big engine;)

I think that you are rather missing the point lads – we were discussing, how hypothetically one could build a faster ‘plane for Reno not realistic possibility – budgetary reasons if no other would prevent a “clean sheet of paper” approach, or at least one that represented properly engineered ‘leading edge technology. I cannot see a threat to the magnificent dinosaurs at present, which of course is all what we would rather see, but this does not mean that it is hypothetically impossible to do better.

but if you think that all Reno is about is speed then you are wrong, it is a combination of sight and sound, and the struggle to get the very best from old technology.

Well put stuart

I suppose one problem is attracting the public money,would they pay to see a small a/c ‘buzzing’ round….possibly!!(personally I would not fly from the UK to see them!!)Do they pay to see/hear the ‘dinosaurs’ blattering past ….yes definitely.Not many a/c at reno are modified though and one can walk
through the pits and get a close look at some wonderful a/c.

Similar problem with frank engined racers??most available jets are just loud and those with fan engines are just ..erm… quiet!!!
If you are talking about a Hunter or Meteor making the ‘blue note’ … you got my vote;)

Also most ‘interesting’ jets have horrendous fuel consumption at low altitude.

Noise is a very subjective thing but some noises are ‘nice’,some are not.

To get back on thread… I am sure it is possible to build a record winner with new technology but then it will disappear into the record books where nobody looks,I am just not sure it would be an attractive racer at reno unless it is of a fairly imposing size with a big engine;)

They already have a jet class but it just aint the same as a big recip engine blattering past at 450+… trust me !! 😉

Thought that this is only limited to L-39s – in which case I agree not quite the same supersonic fighter jets and as you say not a match even for souped up post WW2 piston engined fighters!

Their rules ban Frank, (at the moment) but our laws (of physics) ban propellor types from going significantly faster,at some point they will have to make a choice.

Well I for one welcome the day that this modern technology takes over, at least there will be a few merlins left for the rest of us, but if you think that all Reno is about is speed then you are wrong, it is a combination of sight and sound, and the struggle to get the very best from old technology.

How will new engines and airframes over come the known problems of prop tip speed, and compressability, dirty air, etc, etc; if you just want to go faster there is already an alternative that makes F1 type engines just as redundant as all other IC types, it has the blades on the inside, runs at over 15000 rpm, and theoretically only one moving part, and was designed by a man called Frank.

They already have a jet class but it just aint the same as a big recip engine blattering past at 450+… trust me !! 😉

if you just want to go faster there is already an alternative that makes F1 type engines just as redundant as all other IC types, it has the blades on the inside, runs at over 15000 rpm, and theoretically only one moving part, and was designed by a man called Frank.

Quite – but I believe that the rules ban Frank.

Hi Guys
All the new technology sounds wonderful,but it will not sound as impressive as a big radial !!:D

LOL, imagine turning up in a vectored thrust Sukhoi 37.:D

Well I for one welcome the day that this modern technology takes over, at least there will be a few merlins left for the rest of us, but if you think that all Reno is about is speed then you are wrong, it is a combination of sight and sound, and the struggle to get the very best from old technology.

How will new engines and airframes over come the known problems of prop tip speed, and compressability, dirty air, etc, etc; if you just want to go faster there is already an alternative that makes F1 type engines just as redundant as all other IC types, it has the blades on the inside, runs at over 15000 rpm, and theoretically only one moving part, and was designed by a man called Frank.

But the really key thing is that with our new state of the art engine the whole package would be so much smaller, lighter and more streamlined – it is a virtuous circle. The smaller modern plane would even be stressed to pull more g in the turns, as well as being faster sleeker and more nimble.

The Reno racers remind me so much of the old Indy Roadsters – great dinosaurs of twenties and thirties and technology built around their classic old Offy and Novi engines and blown away by the arrival off science with Colin Chapman and Lotus in 1963 – less power but a much smaller and sleeker package. The Reno racers are magnificent but they are dinosaurs…

Thanks for the examples. (I´m laughing here remembering how well and how often those old F1 turbo motors used to blow up!)

I know things have come on in leaps and bounds since data loggers are used to see exactly what the engine has been doing and electronics to control its behavior.

The motors in the Pond racer were (according to Wikipedia) up to 1000hp in the race cars they were taken from, but only ever 600hp in the plane. Given more time I dare say they´d have got there. Shame, as it seems to have been the only real attempt to surplant the old warbirds in racing.

Examples are no problem…how about a selection from different decades.

1970…Mark Donahue’s Indy 500 winning Johnny Lightning Special using a 220 cubic inch Offtenhauser on Alcohol/Supercharged was putting out around 1000hp…for 3hrs to win.

1985…Williams/Renault F1, reputed to have been putting out over 1200hp from 1.5L (91 cubic inches)Trubo charged, BMW was similar.

1991?…I think it was the Electromotive Nissan GTP Car running in IMSA endurance was pumping 1600hp from 3.0L Twin Turbo yadda yadda.

Porsche through the ame time period (anad others) were also building engines of similar power ranges for duration type events.

And lets not forget the Pond Racer…pair of IMSA 3.0L Twin Turbo Nissan engines that were supposed to be putting uot somewhere between 1000 and 1600hp.

Technology has jumped a bunch since…new turbo charging and EFI technology and the advent of ceramics has lead to a huge hp jump.

Tom H

As far as torque…don’t forget your 10,000 rpm race engine has to reduce to a prop RPM of maybe 1/4 that, the 4:1 gearing multiples the torque of the engine.

Good point – I hadn´t thought of that.:rolleyes:

Can you give a few examples of racing motors? I´d like to read up a bit on this. The only ones that have came to mind were the Falconer V12 (700hp – claimed, possible 1600hp turbocharged, from 600″) or the Lambo race V12s as used in powerboats. Both of which are relatively large displacement but neither of which are even remotely close to 6000hp.

There must be some complicated maths somewhere that tells us how much power is needed to fly 350mph in a given aircraft. I wonder what percentage more power you need for the next 50mph? And the 50 after that?

Interesting to see what the future will bring, but until someone actually stumps up to pay for this technology, for an extremely limited marketplace, we are just left dreaming. And using Griffons.:D

The modern automotive racing engine has become a technology all it’s own.

Building a 6,000hp fresh sheet engine that would be 1/2 the weight and size of the Griffon is well within grasp…and it would be just as reliable.

Rather than beat everyone over the head with examples I will just point out that Endurance Racing has been achieving the required power levels (per litre) for years with at least comparable reliability to the Reno racers.

As far as torque…don’t forget your 10,000 rpm race engine has to reduce to a prop RPM of maybe 1/4 that, the 4:1 gearing multiples the torque of the engine.

Hp vs Torque…..most racers talk hp because it relates to maximum speed, don’t think for a minute that they are not as smart as the aviation crowd…as a matter of fact when it comes to engines they are gnerically much much more enlightened.

The Sport Class at Reno is pointing the direction to head in Reno.

Lancair IV’s lapping at 350+ mph on 1/10th the power of the unlimited…the new technology is coming.

The best part is when it arrives think of all the historic aircraft that will be availabile for preservation and restoration!

Tom H

Let’s give F1 a bit of a head start and look at the Mercedes W196 Grand Prix car of 1956. This used a state of the art powerplant with desmodromic valves and the car wiped the floor with allcomers that season and the next. It was a normally aspirated straight-8 and produced 257bhp from a capacity of just under 2.5 litres. Conveniently, 2006 F1 regs have gone to a 2.4 litre engine which is pretty good for comparison. The 2006 Toyota allegedly offered 740bhp from its V8 engine – and that is on everyday unleaded unlike the ’56 Mercedes.

Given this I’d say that a clean-sheet design from an F1 stable with money pretty much no object could probably produce a great deal more power than the current crop of Reno racers manage. They’ve done well to just about double the power of their 1940s and 1950s powerplants and in many cases I don’t doubt that they have many new trick bits that would have amazed their original designers. But I strongly suspect that if an Ilmor or a Cosworth put their mind to it (and gave Dowty-Rotol a call for a new design prop) we would be seeing at least 5,000bhp, and delivered at a useful torque rating as well.

Agree to differ? I don´t see why we can´t discuss it!:)

I´m pretty sure the racers talk about hp and not torque because hp is easy for the average chap to relate to. You know how many hp your car puts out for example.

Sure you could get “lots of power and reasonable torque from a modern engine design”, but why bother when you can get incredible amounts of both from a Griffon, that was specifically designed for an aircraft and makes maximum power right where you want it?

It seems to be the usual engineering difference in approach between the UK and the US.
UK version – “We need more power. We could add three turbos and six valve heads”.
US version – “We need more power. Lets make it bigger”.:D

I don´t know what the Reno guys do to their engines, but the tractor pullers chuck alcohol down them and then over rev them. No wonder they come apart.

Think that we will have to agree to differ on that one. I agree that one needs sufficent torque to swing the prop, but beyond that torque basically gives you accelleration – it takes power to pull an aircraft through the air. All the torque in the world won’t help you without power – which is why these guys talk about how much power their engines punch out not how much torque. Conversely an engine that is all power and no torque would take forever to get up to speed (although to an extent variable propellor pitch would help). In fact one could get both lots of power and reasonable torque from a modern engine design – one has to accept that engine technology and materials technology has moved on rather a lot over the past sixty years. Finally I would suggest that tractor pullers and Reno racers don’t exactly have the same engine tuning requirements.

F1 technology? Be a bit of a non starter IMHO. 1500hp sounds impressive enough, but torque is what you really need to swing a great big prop. Why would you want a motor that turns 18,000 revs when 4000 is what you need?

A de-tuned alcohol drag motor (or two) would probably be a better bet. The worlds fastest piston engined car ran 410mph using basically a single (and somewhat antique) supercharged nitro V8. Cheaper than a Merlin if nothing else!