Should I risk using Wyns's Radiator Stop Leak on my Rover K-seres Engine??

That's good news. Don't use any type of sealant additives otherwise you'll probably block parts of the cooling system which may well then cause another H/G failure! On the K-series engine it's not unknown for the inlet manifold gasket to leak coolant and it's certainly easier and cheaper to replace - worth doing before suspecting the head gasket...

Darren

But it's a dreadful design of engine. Bloody long bolts (sourced from Italy if I remember right) that go right through the unit from cylinder head to crankcase. The curse of detachable cylinder heads made even worse. Not for the average diy. The bolts also have to be torqued up then loosened then stretched. If it was all in the name of some exotic power surging monster maybe, but on a Metro,-corny engineering at the sublime level. Bit OT but I saw JC on TV boasting as he managed to get a new Land Rover Discovery to graunch it's way to the top of a ridge in the Peak District that my 1954 Ford Popular would have taken in it's stride. (Narrow 17" wheels helped).

That'll be when he took a Disco to the top of one of the highest peaks in Scotland, I think you'll find. Your 1954 Ford definitely wouldn't have made it up there.

The K series is one of the best four cyl small engines ever. Sold in huge numbers, found in stuff as dull as metros but as interesting as lotuses and caterhams, available in capacities from 1.1 to 2.0l (and in V6 versions too). Very very light. Many making 100bhp/litre without forced induction, production road use ones making 90 bhp/l with variable valve timing and 75 without. Innovative and unique variable duration valve timing system.

The message from "davek" contains these words:

Though that's hardly unique these days.

How about the water pump? I was told they last about 40000 miles, mine had gone at 48K (along with the head gasket!)

It was only 1000' high. I can't begin to guess how many hills and mountains exist in Scotland that are over that height, but there are 284 Munros for starters. (That's 3000' and over.)

He got the Disco stuck twice, too. Mind you, whoever parked it at the top for the helicopter shots was a very brave soul. JC stopped next to the trig point, but someone moved it to the edge of what looked like a *big* drop.

And then he flew off with the keys in his pocket............

Regards. Mark.(AKA, Mr.Nice.)

I think I read that. I'd assumed the easiest option was to helicopter it off, although that would have needed a bigger chopper than the one which carried the cameraman. However, access to planes doesn't appear to be a big problem for TG if anyone remembers the Herc which landed on some beach somewhere to drop off a car, or the race they had against a Tornado...

Race against a Tornado?

What the hell was that supposed to prove? That whatever car it was would be slower than a fighter jet?

Accelerating from 0, yes, and in fact the car won. From what I recall, the pilot didn't look like he was really trying though. (A little research revealed they were both Jaguars. A Tornado might have done better.)

A car has the advantage of gears. For a plane, it's like starting in top, albeit without a clutch to worry about.

Ram effect is a factor but not so much at low speeds. Also don't forget the faster the aircraft gets, the more lift it generates and it becomes lighter in effect. The car is using its aerodynamics in the opposite direction to push it into the ground.

As for the manner in which the pilots apply power, the Jaguar can throttle up to full reheat power on both engines with the brakes on. The Tornado has twice the power and will usually spool up to max dry power on the brakes and then release the brakes as reheat is selected.

I think rolling friction is going to be negligible in the context of this situation. I'll pass over your apparent suggestion that the "lighter" plane can have more kinetic energy imparted to it as a result ;-)

So, in either case, maximum thrust just about instantaneously from brake release. (I assume that real afterburners have no significant effect on turbine speed and so any delay in increased thrust is minimal.)

As you say, a bit of a stunt. As was the Stig racing a plane around their circuit. However, one of the best of Clarkson's other progs was his visit to the Confederate Air Force(*) and a pylon racing circuit, imho.

(*) Regardless of what they call themselves now, I prefer this. And the fact they all style themselves as "Colonel".

I was alluding to the rolling friction which of course will decrease as the lift increases. I'm not sure that I would say that the rolling friction was negligible but that's something I don't profess to know a great deal about. I reckon that an aircraft which could do 500 kts at sea level would struggle to do half that on the ground (assuming it was using a hypothetical limitless length runway).

Yes. In the Jaguar's case, max thrust is there right from brakes off. With the Tornado you are only talking about another 3-4 seconds. BTW, "afterburner" is a nasty Americanism. We Brits call it reheat and after all we did invent the damn thing ;)

I dunno. You mentioned cars and downforce earlier, and I believe F1 can hit about 3-4g. (They could comfortably race inverted if they didn't have to slow down much.) I understand the extra drag from the tyres will ultimately reduce top speed, but that still doesn't stop them topping 200mph with ease. Power is only up a bit on the kind of road cars that cam also achieve these speeds. F1 designs don't look terribly slippery but I suppose frontal area is small. I'm fairly sure aerodynamic drag is the biggie.

Anyway, I've not had the pleasure of being in a fighter jet. On landing, is considerable deceleration felt on touch-down ? If not, rolling resistance is not huge. Trying to vastly exceed normal take-off speeds may of course get you into the region where the thing is trying to leap into the air at every available opportunity. Ground effect and all that.

In message , John Laird writes

Yes, its far more pronounced than the acceleration felt on take off but in the case of the Jaguar its down to the brake parachute which can feel vicious and on the Tornado its down to its thrust reverse buckets. Then of course there's the brakes themselves, and the various spoilers designed to kill all lift from the wings on landing. They don't often land and just roll to a halt without any assistance.

F1 are currently running at around 1000 bhp, so if you regard 300-400 bhp more as only a bit up on road cars that can do around 200mph you're right.

F1 designs don't look terribly slippery but I suppose frontal area

It is F1 cars are designed to get around a track as fast as possible. The aerodynamic drag required to achieve the high cornering speeds needed to do that, restricts the top speed to around 200mph. I've no doubt that an F1 car could achieve nearer 300mph in a straight line if cornering ability was not a consideration. Mike.