GlobalFlyer Aims To Go Voyager One Better

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

GlobalFlyer Aims To Go Voyager One Better

Posted by timothy on Wednesday December 1, 2004 @01:14AM from the round-and-round dept.

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.

14 of 104 comments (clear)

Article rewrite by mj_1903 · 2004-12-01 01:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Fossett built.... by Trackster · 2004-12-01 01:23 · Score: 4, Informative

This little bugger
Eh? by avidday · 2004-12-01 01:23 · Score: 5, Informative

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.
1. Re:Eh? by kfg · 2004-12-01 02:01 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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
How to stay awake? by Max+Romantschuk · 2004-12-01 01:25 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

--
.: Max Romantschuk :: http://max.romantschuk.fi/
1. Re:How to stay awake? by mj_1903 · 2004-12-01 01:28 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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.
2. Re:How to stay awake? by anum · 2004-12-01 01:45 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  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...
  
  --
  I don't think, Therefore I'm not.
steve fossett had nothing to do with SS1 by gonar · 2004-12-01 01:31 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

--
The difference between Theory and Practice is greater in Practice than in Theory.
Speed vs. fuel consumption? by Alwin+Henseler · 2004-12-01 01:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

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?
1. Re:Speed vs. fuel consumption? by PhloppyPhallus · 2004-12-01 02:27 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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.
2. Re:Speed vs. fuel consumption? by LWATCDR · 2004-12-01 02:36 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  "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.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Voyager pilots by PseudonymousCoward · 2004-12-01 02:21 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

--
If it isn't true, don't say it. If it isn't helpful, don't say it. If it's true and helpful, wait for the right time.
BBC article with pictures. by TigerNut · 2004-12-01 02:31 · Score: 5, Informative

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

--
Less is more.
Re:Speaking of such flights.... by NickF · 2004-12-01 05:07 · Score: 3, Informative

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.