GlobalFlyer Aims To Go Voyager One Better

LucidBeast writes "We all remember Voyager, the first plane to fly around the world in 1986 on one tank of gas. Now Voyager pilot Steve Fossett plans to do it solo with a jet powered GlobalFlyer. See also New York Times article about it (registration required). The idea of the solo flight according to this story originated with the Voyager builder Dick Rutan." Update: 12/01 13:25 GMT by T : Note, the original submission reversed the roles of Rutan and Fossett; Fossett is the pilot, while Rutan (and his company, Scaled Composites) is the builder.

Comments

Article rewrite

[mj_1903]

We all remember Voyager, the first plane to fly around the world in 1986 on one tank of gas. Now Voyager builder Burt Rutan plans to do it solo with the jet powered GlobalFlyer. This is the same Burt Rutan who also built the X Price Winner SpaceShipOne. See also New York Times article about it (registration required). The idea of the solo flight according to this story originated with the Voyager pilot Dick Rutan. Please fact check your articles before posting.

Re:Article rewrite

[bastiaannaber]

I was just about to say that, steve fossett hasn't build Voyager

Re:Article rewrite

[mj_1903]

Sorry mate, missed that one. Fortunately this article was not a dupe otherwise we could have had a field day.

Re:Article rewrite

[mj_1903]

I hate to reply to my own posts, but did a Slashdot editor look at this? Not only was there the spelling error, "Price" but there was the complete and utter factual mistake with Fosset being named as the creator of SpaceShipOne. You would think that Burt Rutan would also be a household name on Slashdot, did Timothy even read it before posting it?

Re:Article rewrite

[nwbvt]

Since when have editors fact checked anything that is submitted? At least this one didn't have some completely irrelevant MS bias as the center of the summery. Thats why you always have to take anything you read on /. with a whole bucket full of salt.

Re:Article rewrite

[iocat]

Great, now it implies Steve Fosset was the pilot of Voyager. The pilots of the record-breaking flight, according to wikipedia were (Burt's brother) Dick Rutan and Jeana Yeager.

Re:Article rewrite

[iocat]

(referring to the original, updated, article -- which is still incorrect -- not the rewrite)

Re:Article rewrite

[Anonymous Coward]

Corrective Posting Troll on the loose !!!!

Fossett built....

[Trackster]

This little bugger

Eh?

[avidday]

Wanna try again?

Steve Fosset is a millionaire balloonist who eventually made it around the globe after about 4 failed attempts. He had exactly nothing to do with the X-Prize winner AFAIK.

Burt Rutan is an aeronautical engineer and the the brains behind Scaled Composites who built the X-Prize winning SpaceShip One and the Voyager.

Dick Rutan is Burt Rutan's brother and he piloted Voyager around the globe non-stop in 1986.

Re:Eh?

[kfg]

As long as we're at it, I might point out that while Burt designed Voyager, and his company Scaled Composites is the builder of record, that doesn't mean that Dick didn't build it as well.

He may well still be scraping expoy out from underneath his fingernails. As may be Jeanna.

One of the remarkable aspects of the Voyager story is the way they invested years of their lives "home" building the sucker with their own hands, and often the hands of any sucker who happened to be wandering by.

KFG

Re:Eh?

[Muad'Dave]

And Bob Fosse was a choreographer.

Re:Eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

And Bob Ross liked to paint happy little trees.

Re:Eh?

[GeeBee]

And Jeanna Yeager was Dick's co-pilot. She piloted Voyager while Dick slept and vice-versa. Nice of all you fellows to completly forget about a woman who was as integral to the team as Burt and Dick.

Re:Eh?

[showmeshowyoukikoman]

Check your facts. Man this site is just plain pathetic.

"Tenacious in his quest to become the first person to achieve the First Solo Balloon Flight Round the World, Steve finally succeeded in his 6th attempt in the 'Bud Light Spirit of Freedom' (19 June - 4 July 2002)." (http://www.stevefossett.com/html/main_pages/crew. html)

LUCID Beast

[Anonymous Coward]

lucid Audio pronunciation of "lucid" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lsd)
adj.

1. Easily understood; intelligible.
2. Mentally sound; sane or rational.
3. Translucent or transparent. See Synonyms at clear.

Somebody tell that guy that his name is an oxymoron...

How to stay awake?

[Max Romantschuk]

According to the site, the flight will take 80 hours. How does the pilot plan to stay awake that long?

My guess would be amphetamines, which are supposed to be reasonably safe in a small and short term dose. I wonder if it's legal though? Special permits?

Disclaimer: I have no practical experience with amphetamines nor any real knowledge on how safe they really are.

Re:How to stay awake?

[mj_1903]

From memory the pilot will be allowed to take naps on the flight. The aim with the jet was to allow it to fly high enough that it could reach the jet stream which would also take it over most of the turbulence. This will allow him to take naps of potentially up to an hour and if there is an issue that he needs to take care of, mission control will easily be able to wake him.

Re:How to stay awake?

[pe1rxq]

Caffeine patches???
(Or have I been reading UF to much?)

Jeroen

Re:How to stay awake?

[anum]

He will be able to sleep, maybe:
"He said the autopilot was coming along as Jon M. Karkow, the project engineer and main test pilot, got more experience with the plane, but added, "If I'm having trouble with the autopilot, then I will absolutely not fall asleep."

But my favorite quote:
"If it quits at 45,000 feet, or about 9 miles, finding a landing spot is probably not a problem, because it can glide about 30 feet for each one foot loss in altitude, giving it a range of nearly 300 miles before the pilot would have to land, ditch or bail out. But the GlobalFlyer is such a wonderful glider that it would be a challenge to descend fast enough to find breathable air."

Can you imagine the panic in trying to get a plane to go down fast enough that you can breathe but not so fast that you lose control. Glad that's not me then...

Re:How to stay awake?

[Anonymous Coward]

Disclaimer: I have no practical experience with amphetamines nor any real knowledge on how safe they really are.

the guy who sold them said they're pretty safe!

Re:How to stay awake?

[newnerdyuser]

According to the site, the flight will take 80 hours. How does the pilot plan to stay awake that long?

I agree staying awake that long is a big problem, but humans over a three day period also need to answer calls of nature. Anyone with any idea how he can solve that problem?

Re:How to stay awake?

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone could easily stay awake for that long on "softer" stuff like perscription ADHD medicine like aderol or dexedrene.

Re:How to stay awake?

[Anonymous Coward]

If chemistry is involved, probably the same thing USAF pilots use... dexedrine.

Re:How to stay awake?

[Jameth]

Amphetamines are legal over international waters, somewhere I expect he will be spending a lot of time.

However, I suspect good-old-fashioned sleep will be the solution he uses.

Re:How to stay awake?

[Sai Babu]

My favorite, M&Ms plus Punja's ISO accredited Ceylon tea.
It's the BEST breakfast tea I've found in 30+ years of tea drinking.

Re:How to stay awake?

[Anonymous Coward]

Like Speed? Not Legal in Non Free Countries (most). I think his trip would fall under international territory? If UN controls that law then probably not free either.

Re:How to stay awake?

[Anonymous Coward]

Turbulence is not an attribute of the freestream atmosphere. It is an effect of local air movement caused by aircraft maneuvers. You can "avoid" turbulence by changing your flight path so much as you can "avoid" skidding your your car by turning left instead of right.

Re:How to stay awake?

[GeorgeH]

In addition to the autopilot already mentioned, he might do well to get his hands on some Provigil.

Re:How to stay awake?

[Profane MuthaFucka]

I would imagine that there's enough room in the cockpit to move your arm 6 inches or so, which should be enough.

Re:How to stay awake?

[afidel]

I've done 100+ hours with only caffeine. Of course at one point we were using caffinated water to make espresso but it IS possible without illegal drugs =) amphetamine sulphate would work and would have a low risk of side effects (though addiction does occour in a fairly significant percentage of user it does not usually occour with a low number of uses).

Re:How to stay awake?

[Kombat]

But the GlobalFlyer is such a wonderful glider that it would be a challenge to descend fast enough to find breathable air."

Can you imagine the panic in trying to get a plane to go down fast enough that you can breathe but not so fast that you lose control. Glad that's not me then...

I'm a licensed glider pilot. There are a few tricks that can be used to lose altitude rapidly in a high-glide-ratio aircraft such as this. The simplest is plain-old spoilers. The SGS 2-32s we learned on had mechanically operated (i.e., no hydraulics. You just pull the lever, and the connecting rods cause the action) spoilers that popped out of the top and bottoms of the wings, spoiling the lift and causing a rapid loss in altitude. In our aircraft, these spoilers were only a foot or two long, but if necessary for emergency, I'm sure spoilers spanning most of the wing would cause an even more rapid loss in altitude.

The real "fun" way to lose altitude though was through what's called a "forward slip." This is also a good way to freak out your passengers. :) Basically, you roll the aircraft to one side, while applying opposite rudder. This causes the aircraft to remain heading straight forward, but at an awkward attitude such that the wings are not producing nearly as much lift as they would be in a straight-on attitude. It's kind of like leaning forward, rolling to the side, and pushing into the wind with your shoulder. If you do this, combined with full spoilers, you drop like a rock! Plus, it's pretty cool.

Finally, the problem with going too fast isn't "losing control." Rather, the opposite is true. The faster the air flows over the control surfaces, the more control you have. However, aircraft are engineered to have maximum speeds, above which they are not certified to operate. The speed is called the VNE, or "Never Exceed Velocity." The plane is not designed to be able to survive the extreme stresses on the control surfaces that will result from exceeding this speed, and you risk the plane being ripped apart.

Re:How to stay awake?

[Hobadee]

For all you know, the pilot flying your 747 could be taking naps. The average amount of time a pilot actually flies the plane these days is around 30 minutes, regardless of actual flight time. Autopilot does the rest! :-)

The only reason we still have pilots is because 1. if something does go wrong, they can handle it better than a computer. (Although that will probably become false in the near future) And 2. people would freak out if it were just a computer flying the plane. They want to believe that an actual person is in control.

Re:How to stay awake?

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the biggest challenges for pilot Fossett will be staying awake, as he'll have to fly for 80 hours without sleep.

If Fossett does doze off, an autopilot function will keep the plane in the air.

from http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/sci_tech/newsid_ 3950000/3950919.stm

what an ambition

[Plugoor]

first the universe and then the earth!

Yeah I remember that...

[carlmenezes]

the X Price competition...later renamed "The Price is Right"

Who is Steve Fossett ?

[Anonymous Coward]

quick primer here

steve fossett had nothing to do with SS1

[gonar]

steve fossett is the round the world balloon guy.

burt rutan is the ss1 guy, and the voyager guy _and_ the guy building the Global Flyer. at the time of the voyager flight, the original concept was for a jet, or at least a turboprop, but at the time, those engine choices would not provide the kind of fuel economy necessary.

dick rutan and jeanna yeager flew the voyager.

the global flyer is being paid for by the Virgin CEO Richard Branson.

Re:steve fossett had nothing to do with SS1

[Anonymous Coward]

Jeanna Yeager is in no way related to General Chuck Yeager.

Recall, Recall, Recall!

[Zorilla]

Why not just implant the memory of flying solo around the world in a jet - as a secret agent?

(Too many Arnie movies)

Re:Recall, Recall, Recall!

[julesh]

Why not just implant the memory of flying solo around the world in a jet - as a secret agent?

(Too many Arnie movies)

Too many Philip K Dick books for me.

I'm getting the strangest feeling that somebody's watching me....

Re:Recall, Recall, Recall!

[Anonymous Coward]

(Too many Arnie movies)

One is too many, mate.

Speed vs. fuel consumption?

[Alwin Henseler]

Just wondering: given a certain design, isn't the fuel consumption very dependent on speed? From what I understand, there's some exponential relation between speed and air drag. Like, go 2x as fast, 2^something more drag.

When you fly around the world on one tank of gas, I'd think a crucial issue is to maximise the distance/fuel ratio. Given above exponential relation, it seems to me, flying slow would help. I remember NASA built some solar-powered, high-flying plane once, that could stay airborne for very long (effectively indefinite if parts kept working). I also remember that thingie was flying at relative low speed, presumably for same reason.

If you go too slow, you'll drop out of the sky (duhhh...). If you go fast, you need less time but burn fuel like crazy. Also, for slow flying you might need more wing surface, read: increase the weight of the aircraft. So where's an optimum here? Anyone got some (informed) insights?

Re:Speed vs. fuel consumption?

[NardofDoom]

I'm sure with the right equations and about three hours I could find it. But you have to remember, drag is proportional to the cross-section area of the plane. A long, skinny plane with long, thin, narrow wings has lower drag than a short, wide plane with stumpy wings.

Or as Burt said: "You can take a lot of air and move it a little, or a little air and move it a lot. The former is very efficient, but not powerful, and the latter is the opposite."

Re:Speed vs. fuel consumption?

[Anonymous Coward]

Air drag is dependant on the speed by a square.

So if you have two times the speed, then you have four times the air drag. If you have three times the speed, you have nine times the drag. And so on.

I believe this craft is going to fly high because the air is thinner and the drag is smaller.

Therefore it can go faster without great increases in fuel consumption. Speed, again, helps to keep the jet moving, because you still need a certain amount of air to keep the fuel burning. If you have more speed, you can compress/ram more air into the jet.

Re:Speed vs. fuel consumption?

[Anonymous Coward]

Equation is:-
1/2*Cd*S*V^2

where:-Cd is co-eff of drag
S is surface area
V is velocity

Re:Speed vs. fuel consumption?

[PhloppyPhallus]

Well, it's not just that. What happens in an airplane in that as you decrease your speed, you are required to increase your angle of attack to provide sufficient lift to remain aloft. Now, as AoA increases, induced drag (the component of wing lift that is now pointing backwards) increases, thus reducing effciency. So, what you have are basically two drag components, parasitic drag, which increases by the exponential power of velocity, as given in your post, and induced drag, which increases inverse to velocity. At some point these drag-velocity curves intersect at a minimum drag speed, which is approximately the speed of best effciency, generally designed to be the cruise speed.

Another factor is thrown into the mix with non-constant (wrt velocity) thrust in jet engines. Jet engines are designed for best performance in an optimal speed range, and produce poor thrust from a standstill, but are incapable of functioning at a certain maximum speed limit (due to internal shock effects). For a generic jet engine, the efficiency curve peaks at about M=.8,.9 quickly plummets at M=1, and then climbs to it's best value at M=3, then decreases until M=5 or so, where operation becomes impossible. This is why most subsonic airliners fly in the region of M=.8 to M=.9.

At any rate, the point is that slower is definately not better when it comes to airplane effciency, particularly with regard to jet engines, which have optimal operating speeds.

Re:Speed vs. fuel consumption?

[LWATCDR]

"If you go too slow, you'll drop out of the sky (duhhh...). If you go fast, you need less time but burn fuel like crazy. Also, for slow flying you might need more wing surface, read: increase the weight of the aircraft. So where's an optimum here? Anyone got some (informed) insights?"

It is more complex than that. Every airplane has an speed that is the best lift to drag ratio. It is usually very close to best climb speed. Below that speed you have to increase the angle of attack of the wing too much and you get a lot of drag. This also is very dependent on altitude as well as the air gets thinner the optimal speed increases. For some aircraft like the U2 family the stall speed, optimal speed, and max mach number can come very close to converging. And that can be bad.
Yes as you are right that as you increase the wing area you increase the weight but you also can increase the drag from the extra wetted area. Now if you increase the aspect ratio of the wing "make it longer and thinner" you will decrease the induced drag but then the weight can go up and that increases the induced drag. Everything on an airplane is a compromise. The trick is to find the best compromise for the job. Frankly Burt Rutan is very very very good at that.

Re:Speed vs. fuel consumption?

[Doctor Memory]

drag is proportional to the cross-section area of the plane

Wouldn't that be frontal area? That's how it works for cars, anyway, I'll happily accept that planes are different.

Not that I'm an expert on drag, but I have been to New Orleans...

Re:Speed vs. fuel consumption?

[EasyTarget]

Remember that the wings have to generate lift too, this is (effectively) another drag-inducing mechanism. Therefore wing efficiency will be a big factor, I'd assume this thing has -very- efficient wings.

Re:Speed vs. fuel consumption?

[Anonymous Coward]

The max lift to drag ratio is for max endurance, not max range.

Re:Speed vs. fuel consumption?

[NardofDoom]

Well, yeah. If you took the silhouette of a car or plane or whatever from the direction of motion, and calculated the area in shadow, you'd have the cross section of it. This, combined with how it's shaped and what it's made of provides the drag coefficient.

Factors that affect drag.

Re:Speed vs. fuel consumption?

[cameldrv]

No, that's min sink. Max L/D maximizes your distance/energy assuming no wind, an an engine that has the same efficiency across all speeds.

Re:Speed vs. fuel consumption?

[LWATCDR]

No minsink is decrease in altitude over time. Best glide speed is the most efficent L/D speed. Which often is the best climb speed for a powered aircraft.
When soaring you tend to use min sink in a thermal and best glide when going from thermal to thermal. If I remeber correctly the glide ratio of the 2-33 I flew the best glidespeed was 50 mph and that gave you a GL of 23:1 maybe. Min sink was at 42mph and that gave you a sink rate of 3.1ftsec or just under a 20:1 glide ratio. Of course how well the bird was rigged, how clean it was, how many dings in the wing, and how big your lunch was all had an effect.

Actually, I think it's quadratic (v^2)

[benhocking]

I think the force exerted by drag is proportional to the square of the speed. Therefore the total fuel requirement would also be proportional to the square of the speed, although the instantaneous fuel requirement will be propotional to the cube of the speed.

Re:Actually, I think it's quadratic (v^2)

[tyler_larson]

Therefore the total fuel requirement would also be proportional to the square of the speed.

You're forgetting the fact that faster aircraft fly higher where the air is thinner and drag is decreased.

At, say, 50,000 feet, you can travel with a ground speed of 400 MPH while only incurring the drag you'd expect at 200 MPH at sea level. Sure, it's only details, but as long as we're doing calculations, let's get the right numbers.

Re:Actually, I think it's quadratic (v^2)

[Mr Z]

Right, but at a given air density, I'm pretty sure the v^2 relation holds. An airspeed of 400MPH would have 4x as much drag as you'd experience at an airspeed of 200MPH at the same altitude. So, you're both right--you just have to name which variables you're changing. :-)

--Joe

Re:Actually, I think it's quadratic (v^2)

[OneArmedMan]

Not sure how relevent this is , but someone else might be able to expand on this...

During WW2 there was a need to make flights from the West Coast of Australia, all the way over to India, now this isnt such a big deal these days .. but with the planes they were using then, it was..

Basicly to get the range needed they did some funky calculations and it ended up working something like this.

2 hours @ 15000 Feet @ 3000 RPM
2 hours @ 17000 Feet @ 2900 RPM
2 Hours @ 18000 Feet @ 2800 RPM

and so on, basicly as the plane burnt the fuel they could fly a little higher ( less weight ) , and with a little less RPM ( less weight + greater altitude = less drag )

and by doing this the rate of fuel consumption got lower over the course of the flight giving the plane enough fuel to make the trip in one go.

Side note, from memory the planes were PBY Flying boats ..

Feel free to correct this if you know more of the details .

What is the point?

[L0C0loco]

The Global Hawk has the ability to fly nearly half way around the world WITHOUT a pilot. So this guy's claim to fame will be that he did it solo? It seems to me that with the right equipment, he could spend to whole flight taking pictures out the window or sleeping. Won't this claim will be rather pointless given the current state of technology?

Voyager pilots

[PseudonymousCoward]

The point of the GlobalFlyer is a SOLO non-stop round-the-world flight. So it seems the right time to mention that the Voyager non-stop round-the-world flight was piloted by two people: Dick Rutan and Jeanna Yeager.

SOLAR powered round the world flight...

[Sai Babu]

NASA had a real cool solar powered plane. Helios RIP (shall rise again) was unmanned but could stay up for weeks.

Bertrand Piccard will be having a go at round the world solar powered flight. "...70-metre wingspan (larger than a Boeing 747)..."

Bertrand's the dude who just wouldn't give up and got around the world in a balloon in 1999.

Re:How to descend

[dominux]

fly inverted! not sure how pleasant that would be for a pilot with low oxygen, but the blood rush to the head might just work in his favour.

BBC article with pictures.

[TigerNut]

BBC Link to an article that has a partial picture of the beast. Not slashdotted ... yet.

Re:BBC article with pictures.

[anakin876]

good grief, look at how tiny that thing is. Nevermind sleep and bathroom requirements, how can he stand being stuck in that tiny can of an airplane for 80 hours?

Choice of propulsion

[bjomo]

Scramjet anyone?

Voyager one better...

[k4_pacific]

He's going to fly around the world on half a tank of gas.

Re:Voyager one better...

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, but the tank's now twice as big...

/. effect

[FreshAL]

http://www.virginatlanticglobalflyer.com/ is slashdotted. Info here http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/GlobalFl yer

Speaking of such flights....

[MtViewGuy]

...I wonder why Boeing didn't consider trying to fly around the world non-stop on a 747SP back in the early 1980's? A 747SP fully fuelled up and also loaded with the equivalent of a full passenger/cargo load in fuel probably could have come close if they used pre-cooled JP4 fuel.

Re:Speaking of such flights....

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuel filling up the passanger hold would weigh one hell of a lot more than the passengers... Think of the runway length requirement....

Re:Speaking of such flights....

[SammyTheSnake]

I wonder why Boeing didn't consider trying to fly around the world non-stop on a 747SP back in the early 1980's? A 747SP fully fuelled up and also loaded with the equivalent of a full passenger/cargo load in fuel probably could have come close if they used pre-cooled JP4 fuel.

From almost TFA:

GlobalFlyer is an airplane with world-class aerodynamic efficiency that will be 82-percent fuel by weight when it takes off. Responding to a reporter's question, Rutan said that a Boeing 747 with 82-percent of its weight in fuel "would not get off the ground," and that, lacking an engine that was twice as efficient as current engines, the jumbo jet could not fly around the world without refueling.

(Follow the "story" link in the posting)

HTH
Cheers & God bless
Sam "SammyTheSnake" Penny/p

Re:Speaking of such flights....

[Anonymous Coward]

The full passenger load of a 747 would be around 200 pounds per passenger x 500 passengers, or about 100,000 pounds. I don't think this is enough additional fuel to get around the world. I remember asking the pilot of a LAX - Sydney flight how much fuel he expected to have on landing, and he said about 20K pounds, something like 1.5 hours cruising. Using that equivalency, you could infer that you need 13.3 K per hour, times 50 hours, or about 670K pounds to make it all the way around. Don't think any 747 can carry that much weight in anything.

Also of interest is that the Air Force held the longest unrefueled flight record before the Voyager flight, at something like 12,500 miles in a B-52.

Re:Speaking of such flights....

[MtViewGuy]

Fuel filling up the passanger hold would weigh one hell of a lot more than the passengers...

That's true if you're talking volume. What I was suggesting was the standard full fuel load of the 747SP plus the weight equivalent in fuel of a full passenger and cargo load plus the weight of the seats and galley areas. The extra fuel tanks needed for that additional weight would likely not take the whole cargo space area.

Re:Speaking of such flights....

[coppice]

The stripped an early 747-400 bare, loaded as much fuel as possible, and just about got it from London to Australia. I think an around the globe trip is definitely out of the question.

Re:Speaking of such flights....

[Mr Z]

Also, don't forget that you burn fuel faster when you're carrying more of it. Even if you could get off the ground with that much fuel, you'd be burning it at a much higher rate than near the end of the flight.

--Joe

Re:Speaking of such flights....

[NickF]

Just some numbers, from Boeing's website.

Jet-a fuel: 6.84 pounds gal
Circumference at equator: 21,639 nautical miles

Boeing 747-ER Cargo version.

Cargo capacity: 248,600 pounds
Range: 4970 nautical miles
Fuel Capacity: 53,765 gal
Maximum take of weight: 910,000 pounds

Using the range and fuel capacity, the plane burns 10.818 gals per nautical mile.

234,093.4 gallons needed to travel around the equator which is 1,601,198 pounds.

Well above the maximum weight.

Re:Speaking of such flights....

[Mark of THE CITY]

IIRC Boeing did fly a 747 SP delivery flight from Seattle to Johannesburg, South Africa, however far that is (12000 or so miles?) with pre-cooled fuel and multiple crews. It was in the Guinness Book of World Records as longest unrefuelled flight, until eclipsed by Voyager.

Re:Speaking of such flights....

[Forbman]

Mmm... he mentioned 747SP. For the longest time, the longest unrefueled flight in Guinness BoR was for a 747SP flight. they loaded it with chilled JP4. It flew some insane route, and IIRC, it landed in Johannesburg, ZA.

The 747SP is a "chopped" 747-200. It's fuselage is a good amount shorter than a regular 747, but the wing size etc. is the same. It was ordered for some of the longer flights (i.e., NY-Johannesburg, LA-Sydney, etc).

How do they plan to wake him?

[nathan s]

The most obvious solution is some sort of manually-controlled thumbtack in the pilot's seat that jabs him when an appropriate button is pressed at mission-control...

But seriously, hope he's not a deep sleeper:-)

Okay, lets try again to get it right.

[Greg@RageNet]

Well I guess we shouldn't be so hard on those that post comments without reading the articles apparently nobody working for slashdot reads them either... What do they pay there, minimum wage?

Lets straighten this out...

Burt Rutan: Designer of Voyager and GlobalFlyer (and Spaceship1 in case you haven't heard)

Dick Rutan: Pilot of Voyager, brother of Burt Rutan; leaves aircraft designing to his brother.

Steve Fossett: Pilot of GlobalFlyer, didn't pilot Voyager; professional record-breaker on land sea and air.

Honorable Mention - Sir Richard Branson: Financing the project, runs Virgin Airways

-- Greg

Re:Okay, lets try again to get it right.

[iocat]

You forgot someone: Jeanna Yeager who also piloted the Voyager. (No, she was not just the flight attendant.)

Re:Okay, lets try again to get it right.

[Greg@RageNet]

I didn't mention her because she wasn't mentioned in the slashdot article. I'm glad they didn't mention her, they'd probably have her down as the first person to break the sound barrier.

isnt this easy? (just expensive?)

[wisdom_brewing]

cant you just take a large commercial jet, take all the weight taken up by the hundreds of passengers and their luggage and replace it with fuel? that should easily provide more than enough "juice" to get around the world at least once...

[OT] your sig

[Mr Z]

... looks like my UID's prime ...

pilot's weight does change things...

[Anonymous Coward]

So there is a technological angle to making a plane that can fly this far with a pilot on one tank of fuel.

But I'm with you, there is essentially no glory for the pilot. He's just a passenger. In my book, at most he gets credit for risking his life.

Please redo the article!

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoever wrote this, please do a couple of minutes of google search and edit the story.. and use spell checker while at it! It is just bad for /. as you will be labeled as a site with wrong facts.

Just can't impress Dad

[razmaspaz]

Dick: Dad, I just flew an airplane around the world on a single tank of gas, aren't you pround. Dad: Quiet Dick, your borther Burt is sending a man into space.

Me: I know, I know, I am sure they are all one big happy family!

Registration question

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, here's a question, a little offtopic, but worth considering: Why the hell do we still make posts to articles that require registration? Sure there are ways around this, but wouldn't a more effective way to end this crap be to just only post to articles that don't require registration? Seriously.

Re:Registration question

[mabinogi]

here's a question, why do people still complain about it, given that there have always been NYT articles posted here?

Besides, you're implying that people would actually READ the articles....

What everyone was thinking I'm sure

[SlayerofGods]

Damn I wish I was a billionaire and could do crazy crap like this.

Flight to take off/land in Salina, Kansas

[5Ball]

Stories are here: http://www.saljournal.com/content/2-0-/module/disp laystory/story_id/3818/format/html/displaystory.ht ml And here: http://www.globalflyer.com/NewsFeatures/NewsArchiv e/SecretIsOut.jsp

But....

[Forbman]

Dick Rutan was the pilot of Voyager, not Burt.