Hello folks and apologies for the lack of regular updates in the last few months but I hope the reasons for that will become apparent as discussed below, as we work towards a credible British attempt upon the Outright World Water Speed Record (WWSR).
So just like a favourite television soap that has had its followers fed up during a strike by actors and screenwriters, thank you for tuning back in after our little absence. Make yourself a brew and sit down for a little read as we pick up where we left off with this next instalment.
They do say the most important things in life are health and family and if that is true then we are blessed to welcome our first grandson ‘Roman’ who enters the arena of our crazy family that has a jet hydroplane in their cottage workshop. His mother, (our daughter Jenny) gave birth to this little bundle of joy last month and I am hoping it won’t be long before he is crawling under the boat to recover that 10mm socket I can see but can’t reach.
Back with what has held us up these past few months with the build of Longbow, and hence the lack of updates, the causation remains the engineering analysis and design of the driver cockpit for the craft, in order to satisfy the UIM cockpit rule when applied to Outright World Water Speed Record.
The UIM (Union Internationale Motonautique) are the international governing body for powerboats and are recognised by the International Olympic Committee (IOC), which in turn are both recognised by Guinness World Records. They are so to speak the powerboat equivalent of the FIA (Federation Internationale de l’Automobile) that governs vehicle motorsport including but not limited to F1 and car land speed records.
When this UIM cockpit rule came into force in 2013, I did not feel that on the face of things it would be possible to come up with the engineering analysis that the rule requires to be submitted to the UIM when applied to the Outright World Water Speed Record. This being due to the extreme speeds on water required to challenge the record and if the craft came to grief, the resultant impact forces involved. In fact I recall me relaying all of this to Bob Wartinger of the UIM a good few years ago about just how difficult if not impossible to satisfy this rule it would be. I will never forget Bob pausing for a moment and then saying ‘they thought it was impossible to go to the moon but they rose to the challenge and did it’.
I managed to meet up with Bob for the first time this November at the annual Coniston Records Week, where even at 79 years old he had come over from the USA to still partake in breaking water speed records. On this occasion claiming his 143rd record! Back in 1989 Bob broke the outright outboard powered hydroplane record at a speed of 176.55mph which was an amazing achievement as shown in the photo below.
It was nice to chat face to face with Bob rather than our periodic email or phone call exchange. We had a good discussion about the public display running of historic vintage hydroplanes in the USA and yes the WWSR cockpit rule, in addition to chatting about Bluebird and water speed records in general. I asked the Museum if it was possible for me to show Bob Bluebird and upon doing so he made several very helpful comments when he sat in her cockpit as shown in the photo below.
Going back to our cockpit for Longbow if we could not comply with the UIM cockpit rule when applied to the WWSR, then our alternative options are going to be somewhat limited. That is to say likely to revolve around running outside of the UIM sanctioning a record attempt. To do that on a surveyed measured timing trap distance of one kilometre, on the premise that no such UIM rule was in place prior to 2013, when all the previous attempts upon the Outright World Water Speed Record were made.
Some will take the view that the fastest boat in the world is the fastest boat in the world, no matter who certifies the surveyed timing trap, speed, or sanctions the record attempt. No matter how folk view this UIM cockpit rule for the WWSR, I can see that it does provide the UIM with some degree of reassurance that they prevented an attempt under their governance of anyone so minded as to just strap a jet engine onto a rowing boat, use a deck chair for the driver to sit in and shout ‘hold my beer and watch this’. Because the inevitable outcome with that scenario is it would be the UIM as the sanctioning body that would be left having to justify to the coroner, the driver’s family and the public, as to why they had sanctioned such a person and such a craft to make an attempt upon the UIM Outright Water Speed Record under their governance.
Accordingly and given the driver in this case is not me, it would seem prudent on my part to at least give it our best shot at genuinely trying to comply with this UIM cockpit rule for the WWSR. This being especially so here in the U.K. where at times some folk seem more willing to rubbish a record attempt for whatever reason they can find, rather than support it.
Hence why I dropped this tough cookie challenge into the lap of our design engineer Paul Martin, to see if this holy grail of UIM cockpit rule analysis and compliance could have any hope of being achieved for an Outright WWSR boat. As a result I have stood well back for the past few months pacing up and down like an anxious expectant father, waiting to see if it is good or bad news that is going to be delivered from ‘Professor’ Paul.
From time to time an email would drop into my inbox from Paul and I would hesitate as to whether to open it for fear of it stating ‘sorry Dave – it can’t be done’. Fortunately such emails from Paul have typically been requests for me to carry out gofer duties of sourcing one piece of information or another from the hydroplane world or elsewhere. So off I would trot with my little email research assignment, then submit the information back to Paul who would either mark it ‘A star’, or ‘no you idiot, try harder’.
However the good news right now is that Paul’s mind boggling amount of moon shot calculations, are paying dividends to the point that we are not too far off the point where we can ‘go for launch’. By that I mean tying all of those separate elements of his analysis together into the various chapters that as a whole will form a submission to the UIM Cockpit Committee for their consideration. The following illustrations are examples only from work in progress and hence do not relate to the specific cockpit that will be built.
This for me has been without doubt the most challenging and daunting part of the project to date. It is somewhat difficult to convey herein that degree of personal concern because it is a fork in the road juncture that will determine whether we can progress under the UIM governance, or have to run outside of the UIM like our good friend Dave Warby in Australia has chosen to do.
Although we have not at this stage actually built anything in relation to the actual cockpit other than a mock up of it as a starting point for Paul’s analysis, it just goes to show that the academic challenges of design can be just as difficult, if not more so than the physical ones of actual fabrication.
As to other news it may not have escaped those with an interest in the Water Speed Record that our driver for Longbow, Flt Lt David-John Gibbs of the RAF, has been publicly announced by the Ruskin Museum as their choice for the role of reserve driver when they run Bluebird K7 in 2026. The Ruskin Museum have also nominated the primary driver at that event as our good friend David Warby, whose late father Ken holds the current Outright World Water Speed Record. Both of the drivers have not surprisingly stated it is an honour to be selected by the Ruskin Museum to drive this iconic boat.
David-John (DJ) apart from being a thoroughly nice chap, is Officer Commanding Tutor Standards Flight in the RAF. He has piloted 50 different types of aircraft including fixed wing, fast jets, along with search / rescue helicopters and has performed aerobatic displays for both the RAF and private operators. In his spare time DJ races a hydroplane as well as driving other more sedate boats, including one that is steam powered. He continues to take his annual powerboat ‘cockpit safety dunk test’ and has a powerboat racing licence. DJ driving Bluebird along with his mentoring from Mr. Warby will obviously be of great benefit to him when it comes to DJ piloting our jet hydroplane Longbow. The following recent photo shows DJ trying out Bluebird’s cockpit for size:
Dave Warby brings a lifetime of experience of jet hydroplanes and has already driven his Spirit of Australia II at twice the speed that Bluebird is likely to be displayed at in 2026. The legendary dynasty of Dave challenging his father Ken’s Water Speed Record is in my view the perfect mirror of Donald Campbell bettering his father Malcolm’s Water Speed Record (albeit Stanley Sayers held the record between the father / son Campbell victories). Accordingly it is very fitting that Dave has been chosen by the Ruskin Museum to drive Donald’s Bluebird in 2026. Dave’s father Ken had regular discussion with Donald Campbell’s lifelong mechanic Leo Villa so again the ties between Bluebird, and the Warby’s are so very well established.
Courtesy of Jeff Barnett
The Ruskin Museum have recently sent two Mk 101 Orpheus engines that it now owns for overhaul to my good friend Pete Walker who as Chief Engineer for Heritage Aircraft Ltd manages the Folland Gnats powered by Orpheus engines that are currently based at North Weald Airport. I have known Pete who is ex RAF for the best part of 20 years and he is a lovely genuine chap with an encyclopaedic knowledge of the Orpheus engines who obviously works upon historic aircraft to a very high professional CAA standard. He therefore was a natural choice for me to approach and ask on behalf of the Ruskin Museum if he would be prepared to take on the task of both overhauling the Museum’s engines and installing one of them into Bluebird.
Pete has always been happy to help advise me and it is great that we are on the same page with how things should be done correctly when it comes to maintaining and running these historic jet engines. His advice was invaluable for example when I was rebuilding an Orpheus engine FOC for Helical Technology and their K777 / Silverbird jet hydroplane circa 2010 as shown in the following photos
The next couple of photos show DJ sat in the K777 / Silverbird and the boat itself at Helical Technology back in 2012.
I am aware there has been a little confusion within social media posts about the engines for Bluebird in recent times, of which I provided some degree of background upon the different versions of the Orpheus within the Longbow diary update of March 2023. That being shortly after the Museum were gifted two Mk. 803 Orpheus engines.
https://www.jet-hydroplane.uk/march-2023-update/
The two Mk. 803’s (as historically used in the Italian made Fiat G.91 aircraft) came to the Museum through Dave Warby being made aware of them from the same folk in Europe who provided him with his Mk. 803 Orpheus engine that he uses in his jet hydroplane Spirit of Australia II. How much chopping and changing would be required to make a Mk. 803 Orpheus fit within Bluebird’s hull was never fully determined. Back in 1966 Bluebird had been fitted with a Mk. 701 Orpheus as used within the single seat F.1 version of the Folland Gnat. However given the Museum had no jet engines at the time, it would have been somewhat churlish on their part to look a gift horse in the mouth by way of a pair of Mk. 803 Orpheus engines landing upon their doorstep for nothing.
When Bluebird was run upon Loch Fad in 2018 she was powered by a Mk. 101 Orpheus as used within the two seat T.1 version of the Folland Gnat. So although they had not used a Mk. 701 Orpheus as originally fitted to Bluebird in 1966, the precedent for the Museum was already there that a Mk. 101 Orpheus would sort of fit within the hull of Bluebird.
I say ‘sort of’ because irrespective of the Orpheus engine being a Mk. 701 or a Mk. 101, the fireproof bulkhead on either model of engine needs to be partially cut away on each side, along with some other alterations to get either of these engines to reasonably fit within the hull of Bluebird. For those that may ask why doesn’t any model of Orpheus engine readily fit within Bluebird’s hull, the answer to that is the boat was originally designed around and fitted with a smaller diameter Metropolitan- Vickers F.2/4 Beryl with which it achieved all of her successes and records with.
The swap to a larger diameter Orpheus engine was only made for Bluebird’s last and as it transpired fatal attempt upon the record. Of note here in the U.K. around twice as many two seat T.1 Gnats were built that use the Mk. 101 Orpheus, compared to the single seat F.1 Gnats that use the Mk. 701 Orpheus. Hence why after all these years both F.1 Gnats and the Mk. 701 Orpheus engine that powers them are both like hen’s teeth to find.
Back in 2010 Charles Morris of Helical Technology had asked me to keep a look out for any other Orpheus engines to supplement the two he already had for K777 / Silverbird. As luck would have it some time later a Mk.101 Orpheus appeared on the ‘Barnstormers’ website which advertises aircraft parts worldwide. Through that advert I made contact with Gary Vinovich who was acting on behalf of an elderly gentleman called Tony who had a T.1 Folland Gnat aircraft in California USA. Tony was selling the Orpheus engine that he had previously bought as a spare for his plane. Gary sent me some photos of the engine as shown below and told me it had last been run up in its stand during 1996.
For reasons I will not elaborate upon within this update, Charles made the decision not to purchase Tony’s engine. Sadly sometime later Tony passed away and it was left to his daughter Heike to sell the engine. I let the Museum know about this MK. 101 Orpheus engine, along with informing them of its background and taking all of that into account a benefactor of the Museum decided to fly out to California and purchase it for them.
Again on behalf of Charles I went to look at another Mk. 101 Orpheus around the same time I had been in discussion with Gary and this other engine was owned by Eric Bannister at Donnington Aviation Club. It had been purchased by Eric with a view to putting it into a Gnat aircraft but that venture didn’t happen, so it was then surplus to his requirements. Prior to Eric purchasing the engine it had been taken for repair to Rolls Royce Ansty after it had suffered a bird strike. Following that overhaul it was in immaculate condition, complete with flight hours remaining and original relevant paperwork. The engine was correctly inhibited, bagged and all of that even contained within its very well made timber storage / transport box. Here are some photos of Eric’s engine when I first went to see it for Charles all those years ago:
Discussions were had about the engine and as nice as it was, a price that suited both parties to purchase the engine at the time could not be agreed upon. Subsequently I let the Museum know about this engine and the following photos show my visit to Eric in September of this year, for the Ruskin Museum, where I inspected it again and from which the Museum took the decision to purchase it:
I then spoke to Pete at North Weald to let him know of the latest engine acquisition by the Museum and we both agreed Eric’s engine was a sensible choice to purchase for Bluebird under the circumstances. Later I sat in on zoom calls between Pete and the Museum where they discussed Pete and his colleagues overhauling the Orpheus engines and then the challenge of fitting one of them into Bluebird along with respective provisional labour and material costs for all of that work. Following that I asked Pete if he wouldn’t mind coming up to the Museum in order to familiarise himself with Bluebird before the boat is sent down to him. As a result I met both Pete and his wife, along with a lovely gentleman and engineer John Haycock there earlier this month, where we took the engine covers off and chatted over the hull as shown in the following photo.
At that meeting I also removed the corroded rudder out from Bluebird to visually inspect it and considering the forces hanging on that rudder when the craft is being run with steering being such a critical item in a public setting, I then arranged with our Longbow sponsor Manchester Metrology for them to come and scan it with a view to having another of our Longbow sponsors WEC fabricate a new one. In addition to scanning the rudder l also asked Manchester Metrology to scan the cockpit area of Bluebird for the forming of a replacement canopy by the aircraft canopy manufacturer Mecaplex in Switzerland. I had previously dealt with Mecaplex when making a canopy for K777 / Silverbird back in 2011. The following photo shows the rudder from Bluebird after I had removed it for visual inspection.
Further to that discussion I informed Pete that having had what feels like way too long away from my own project in order to let Paul get on with his cockpit calculations, I now had to concentrate once more upon Longbow. It has been an interesting time having been involved with sourcing the Museum both of their Mk. 101 Orpheus engines they have now ended up with, putting them in touch with the drivers who the Museum themselves had wished to bring on board. Also with me preparing and providing the Museum with a considerable amount of technical information pertaining to the boat. Additionally providing them with and being party to a good number of meetings with some of my engineering contacts, including but not limited to Pete Walker at North Weald, Steve Hartley at WEC, Paul Bulman, Sam Mather and all at Manchester Metrology, Steven Houghton and Darren at Mecaplex in Switzerland, etc.
However and after looking at Bluebird in considerable detail, then with all of that information drawing some private conclusions, along with consideration of my focus and passion being Longbow, something has to give. It is readily apparent that with what I know lies ahead with Bluebird, I cannot give my best to both projects, so better to do Longbow well than struggle to do two ventures. As such I will not be involved with the Museum running Bluebird going forward, though obviously in bowing out to concentrate upon Longbow I remain good friends with all at the Museum and wish them every success with getting the boat to running condition for their fantastic event in 2026.
The running of Bluebird upon Coniston Water in 2026 at around 100-150mph will be a very poignant moment for so many and I will be in the crowds on the shoreline along with Gina and so many other supporters watching her in action. This iconic jet hydroplane Bluebird that has been so much of my life and my inspiration for doing Longbow being displayed as she should be by my good friends from Australia Dave Warby and his team, with our very own DJ as his reserve driver. What a terrific sight and sound that all will be.
With Longbow there is just good times and giggles of doing something completely different to what folk normally have tucked away in their workshop. For those involved with the project we all love the challenge of getting her built and developed. She really is a totally different animal to Bluebird with not just one jet engine but two and we cannot wait for her to be completed, then out on the water doing what she was built for; a credible British attempt from a cottage workshop at being the fastest boat in the world by a handful of supporters, friends and family.
With Paul’s momentous amount of work that he has and continues to put into the driver cockpit of Longbow nobody should accuse us of not taking due diligence at this cautious risk averse methodical approach to our little venture.
I hope that this has been an interesting and informative update for you and if so minded, please pop back towards the end of December for our next instalment. In the meantime the following link to a recent Magneto article concerning some of the points I have discussed herein is worth a read: