Page 2 of 69

Re: Quicksilver

Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 11:32 am
by Ernie Lazenby
I agree Mike and thats what is likely to happen. If I shove and push I think I can get K7 into the back of my Focus with the back seats down and I may just get either Bud or Slo Mo along side with care. Probably Slo Mo because as you know that was the seminal hydro. With care I could get another in the front stood up on its end in the passenger side footwell. I will do my best.

BTW If and when a completed QS appears on the water I may build a big GT working model of it

I have started US Discovery 11.

Re: Quicksilver

Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:46 pm
by klingon
[quote="Ernie Lazenby"]I agree Mike and thats what is likely to happen. If I shove and push I think I can get K7 into the back of my Focus with the back seats down and I may just get either Bud or Slo Mo along side with care. Probably Slo Mo because as you know that was the seminal hydro. With care I could get another in the front stood up on its end in the passenger side footwell. I will do my best.

BTW If and when a completed QS appears on the water I may build a big GT working model of it
See If you can build a 1:1 scale model of it and we'll all have fun-I got a spare Derwent hanging around!

Re: Quicksilver

Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 8:46 pm
by jonwrightk7
great link mike, seems to me that its an exercise in technology. the more tech you put into it, the more can go wrong! the bloodhound project is very tech based but when your aiming for mach 1.4 then this has to be the case. have to question the wisdom of putting the pilots cockpit in one of the sponsons! surely the occilatory loadings on the pilot would be horrendous in anything other than mirror smooth water!?

Re: Quicksilver

Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 9:53 pm
by KW Mitchell
And equally, John, I cannot go with the notion of rejecting a horizontal stabiliser on the fin. Expert aerodynamicists who were involved with K7, Stollery, Fink and Norris knew that it would have prevented the fatal pitch-up but the latter rejected it not on the basis of good aerodynamic design, but the rules then pertaining to record breaking.

Examining the current record holder Warby's Spirit of Australia, shows the Fink designed stabiliser on the fin. It appears to have 2-3 deg's positive incidence producing lift at the stern and resultant download on the bows. These loads being aerodynamically driven, progressively increase with speed. This produces unconditional stability in pitch.

Although I am not familiar with the detailed design of Quicksilver, I am at a loss to understand the wind tunnel results which would contraindicate the use of such an airfoil ---------.

Re: Quicksilver

Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 10:52 pm
by Renegadenemo
He's a canny old fox, is that Mr Warby. He'll tell you that horizontal surface was up there just for show if you ask...

Re: Quicksilver

Posted: Thu May 21, 2009 7:11 am
by klippe
I, for one, am just happy that the QuickSilver design has been re-worked from a reverse three pointer to its latest configuration.

History isn't really on the side of the reverse three pointer design......

Cliff

Re: Quicksilver

Posted: Thu May 21, 2009 1:32 pm
by rob565uk
"Constant change can be used to give the illusion of progress" - a quotation of forgotten origin, but relevant in this case I think.........

Re: Quicksilver

Posted: Thu May 21, 2009 4:03 pm
by Renegadenemo
I was talking to a senior person from the QS project last week who is firmly of the opinion that it's going nowhere. Bit of a shame really.

Re: Quicksilver

Posted: Thu May 21, 2009 5:05 pm
by rob565uk
It is a tragic shame, considering the rich WSR history in the UK and the unique Campbell legacy. And if a serious UK contender were to appear tomorrow, I think they might just have a hard time raising backing ..........

Re: Quicksilver

Posted: Fri May 22, 2009 9:22 am
by rob565uk
I was looking at the QS site, under The Craft>Testing showing the latest model under test, and was struck by the fact that Nigel seems to be increasingly resembling Ken Dodd ...