Bugatti breaks 300 mph barrier with a modified Chiron

[Big Tea]

.... "Reduce load..."
No, since Concorde as a supersonic delta design - put its weight on its tyres 'til lift-off,
& of course, on landing too - with instantaneous acceleration on touchdown

it seems that .....
at max wt (181 tons start of takeoff) Vr was 197 kt 227 mph IAS (ie true speed higher in places higher above sea level )
rotation was 'long' ..... (meaning quite slow ?)
presumably C was aerodynamically unstable in pitch so before rotation elevators were giving nose-down pitch ie lift
and for rotation elevator force became reduced lift or downforce
so max tyre load would be at 227 mph
if we believe Capt. Hutchinson saying that C full weight is on wheels fuselage-level (unlike other airliners)
ie design is for best acceleration by having minimum wing drag ie no lift when fuselage-level

(rotation was to 13 deg to allow for engine loss - becoming 18 deg attitude in noise-abatement climb)
takeoff typically took 30 - 40 sec (11 - 13 sec in continuation training !)
C tyres didn't have a great record (Air France threw a tread causing fire and dubious 3 engine flight from the USA to France ?)

250 mph was apparently the 'safe' tyre limit for eg F105 F106 and F104 (this '240 kt' dead-engine landing)
shuttle touchdown 215 mph, SR71 242 mph, X15 similar
iirc Bob Hoover landed an F100 at 325 or so (the opening footage in the '6 million dollar man' thing)

btw pilots touch down with a deliberate bump on wet runways - the extra force helps wheels spin up and ABS to work

Is there a difference going from low speed to high v high to low?
You know, heat soak v scorch from cold? Temp and pressure of the air inside ?

[J.A.W.]

All of those factors reduce load on the tyres by the 'rated' 250, and 250 is still very far from 330. And a takeoff roll is only a few seconds versus almost a minute of driving power through those tyres.

and cheeRS's point about top fuel dragsters is even less relevant because those tyres are specifically designed for the job have a much longer circumference so rotate slower for a given speed, and are also very soft on purpose and are only spinning under power for three seconds.

LSR tyres are very specific creatures, negligible downforce and side loads, and usually very tall.
The last Bluebird LSR car was initially limited by the tyres.


All of this neglects the controversy about the record itself anyway.

"Reduce load..."

No, since Concorde as a supersonic delta design - put its weight on its tyres 'til lift-off,
& of course, on landing too - with instantaneous acceleration on touch-down, then
followed by massive braking forces.

AFAIR, aircraft tyres have also been used on land speed vehicles,
such as the giant diesel trucks at Bonneville.

Anything put its weight on its tires, but contrary to cars, planes create lift, both supersonic and subsonic wings, so with planes as speed increases, lift increases, and tire load decreases

Not sure what you call massive braking forces, I´ve never seen a plane wich creates more deceleration under braking than any commuter. They brake hard, obviously, but not even close to any small car applying full brakes, let alone any of these ultra-hyper-sport cars

Concorde as an airliner, did not use parachute braking, & so the immense braking forces necessarily
required the development of fan-cooled anti-lock carbon discs - decades before any 'hyper' cars...

https://www.heritageconcorde.com/landin ... ng-systems

[Just_a_fan]

Concorde as an airliner, did not use parachute braking, & so the immense braking forces necessarily
required the development of fan-cooled anti-lock carbon discs - decades before any 'hyper' cars...

https://www.heritageconcorde.com/landin ... ng-systems

They also used reverse thrust from the engines to help with braking, as do most jet airliners, of course.

The exhaust was a clever system that changed configuration during realms of flight and, apparently, at M2.0, about half of the thrust from "the engine" was actually due to the variable intake and exhaust systems. (SR71 also got a lot of its performance from the intake system).

Concordes also used idle reverse thrust on the inboard engines to help increase the rate of descent.

[Cold Fussion]

[RZS10]

There's articles about the non 300+ Super Sport from today.

Another one here.


One claims Bugatti has already built 30 of the 300+ cars two years ago (which def. isn't true since that was when they did the run in the one-off prototype), the other one only says "Bugatti said they would build" 30. A bit less than a year ago there were videos of Journos riding along in a "very early development version" and now they announced the Super Sport and it's either another variant or they realized they couldn't pull off the 300+ and thus dropped it from the name.

The car is essentially the same, same engine, same body, same vents, same everything but Instead of the (one way) 304mph/490kph speed this "only" does 273mph/437kph.

[Pyrone89]

So when can we expect 500 km/h to be broken?

[RZS10]

When Koeniggsegg runs their Jesko in some desert ... March last year they said "in a year or two"