Slashdot Mirror


GlobalFlyer 'Round The World Solo Flight Takes Off

bryanthompson writes "The Virgin Atlantic GlobalFlyer took off from the Salina Municipal Airport this evening at about 6:47 CST. The Salina Airport was chosen for its central location, and the fact that it is one of the few air strips long enough for the flyer to take off successfully. The trip around the world is expected to take about 80 hours, with speeds averaging 285 mph. The craft was designed for Sir Richard Branson by Burt Rutan of Scaled Composites, who also designed SpaceShipOne." Steve Fossett is piloting the craft, intended (as reader aallan puts it), "to be the first solo non-stop flight around the world without refuelling."

280 comments

  1. 80 hours??, this /. editors ... by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 4, Funny

    That should read 80 days, Passepartout!!

    --
    WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    1. Re:80 hours??, this /. editors ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really think a plane can stay aloft for 80 days without landing or refueling?! Do you realize how much food & water it would have to carry? Bonehead...

    2. Re:80 hours??, this /. editors ... by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      no Mr. Fogg, it is only 79 days as our transversal of the international date line afforded us an extra day! we are saved!

  2. Live Tracking by KaSkA101 · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:Live Tracking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope the aircraft fares better than the GlobalFlyer websites have, even before the /. posting.

    2. Re:Live Tracking by ElectricBrain · · Score: 0

      Great..... ./ed already.

    3. Re:Live Tracking by bikerguy99 · · Score: 1

      Q: Will bringing down the tracking site stop the flight?

      A. I guess we'll see, Mr. Fossett...

    4. Re:Live Tracking by ein2many · · Score: 0

      I hope he's not using this site for an update on his progress. It took damn near the 80 hours to load the page.

    5. Re:Live Tracking by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Funny

      This is all getting pretty dull and repetitive. I mean, what's next, around the world without taking a leak?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    6. Re:Live Tracking by jbrader · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm sure astronauts do that all the time

      --
      You are so boring that when I see you my feet go to sleep.
    7. Re:Live Tracking by BOEINGDUDE · · Score: 1

      this is history being made before your eyes, and you sit at your computer and scoff. how sad. around the world in 80 hours solo. that is so awesome.

  3. Re:Please hold your arms away from your body... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you fly your own plane, except for a few cases, you aren't subjected to searches. And if you are subjected to a search, it is a half-hearted, non-governmental searcn, and knives and the like are allowed (though no guns).

  4. sleepy? by tiredwired · · Score: 5, Funny

    Anyone know how you can stay up for 80hours straight and still land a plane? I'm not talking about Viagra.

    1. Re:sleepy? by thebes · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      surely you mean v1@6r@ !!!!!111

    2. Re:sleepy? by hazee · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I wonder why he has to - the plane has an autopilot, but the plan is to only sleep for a few minutes at a time.

      Considering that he'll have a chase plane beside him some of the time, you'd think he could just stick it on autopilot for a few hours nap, and people in the chase plane will yell over the radio to wake him up if anything goes amiss.

      But maybe that's stretching the definition of "solo flight".

    3. Re:sleepy? by bwb · · Score: 3, Informative

      Modafinil might do the trick.

    4. Re:sleepy? by Timesprout · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Honestly, not trying to flame but this is not as hard as most people think and has obviously been taken into cosideration before they take off. i'm not saying its a doddle but the normal military thing is 2 on 2 off and you can go for a surprisingly long time.

      --
      Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
      What truth?
      There is no dupe
    5. Re:sleepy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's got auto pilot for short naps according to our local public radio station here in Kansas City.

    6. Re:sleepy? by Alien+Being · · Score: 1

      Landing happens by default, and I'm not talking about viagra either.

    7. Re:sleepy? by firew0lfz · · Score: 1

      Ah, I should have checked the comments before posting my own comment. My bad.

      Anyways, you may be interested to read this.

      --
      Try not to let life get in the way of living.
    8. Re:sleepy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He had better not sleep over the US as there are FAA penalties if he makes that public.

    9. Re:sleepy? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 4, Informative

      He'll be sleeping longer than a few minutes, but there won't be any eight-hour snoozes for him. The autopilot ensures that no matter what his alertness condition, the appropriate settings will be used to maximize fuel efficiency. He'll have the option of taking over in an emergency, but for the most part, he's just along for the ride.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    10. Re:sleepy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take-off weight was 83% fuel and 5% Red Bull.

    11. Re:sleepy? by mickyflynn · · Score: 3, Funny

      yeah, but that's with a crew of 5 in a B-52 (with at least 2 flight-qualified individuals), or 2 in a B2 stealth bomber, both pilots. The military never would have built a one-man plane to fly 23-hour missions around the world and back.

      But this probably involves jolt cola or something.

    12. Re:sleepy? by Jozer99 · · Score: 1

      Calis

    13. Re:sleepy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HEHE

    14. Re:sleepy? by HangingChad · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Raises an interesting question. I'm wondering if you could create a flight management system that could handle the roll out, flight to a destination and successfully land with either minimal help from a human pilot or possibly none at all?

      Seems as if most of that technology already exists. Auto land has been around for quite a while, there are even model aircraft that can fly course, altitude and GPS waypoint profiles. What's keeping us from putting it all together?

      Seems like the only time a modern aircraft needs help from a human is if there's a problem.

      --
      That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    15. Re:sleepy? by jcr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm wondering if you could create a flight management system that could handle the roll out, flight to a destination and successfully land with either minimal help from a human pilot or possibly none at all?

      Yes.

      Recent Boeing and Airbus planes are already able to auto-takeoff, auto-land, and auto-navigate en route. AFAIK, the only thing they can't do is take direction from Air Traffic Control.

      I'd like to see FedEx or UPS go fully robotic, so that a few years from now, commercial passenger planes would do likewise. Computers don't drink, they don't sleep, they don't have fights with their wives, and they're not subject to intimidation by armed thugs.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    16. Re:sleepy? by jackalope · · Score: 1

      I would disagree about the intimidation part. Maybe not armed thugs, but thugs that are smart enough to gain unauthorized access to the system.

    17. Re:sleepy? by VAXcat · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's the way it's headed. It's like that old joke about the cockpit complement on future airliners - instead of a pilot and a copilot, it will just be a pilot and a dog. The dog's job is to bite the pilot if he starts trying to mess with the controls.

      --
      There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
    18. Re:sleepy? by jcr · · Score: 1

      Secure systems aren't as impossible to achieve as our daily experience would lead us to believe. You wouldn't run an Airliner on WINCE.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    19. Re:sleepy? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Computers don't drink, they don't sleep, they don't have fights with their wives, and they're not subject to intimidation by armed thugs.
      Unfortunately, computers also are unable to respond to situations which they were not programmed for. Neither are quite a number of people, frankly, but hopefully the people we put in the cockpit are capable of reason in a previously unknown situation.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    20. Re:sleepy? by jcr · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, computers also are unable to respond to situations which they were not programmed for.

      Yet they are able to respond perfectly in situations that they *are* programmed for. IE, engine out, wind shear, loss of one or more control surfaces, etc, all of which a human may train for, but is less likely than the computer to diagnose in a short period of time.

      Remember, the #1 cause of aircraft accidents is "controlled flight into terrain".

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    21. Re:sleepy? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      Those problems are wide-ranging enough to justify having the pilot and copilot inside, because the potential problems with remote-control are too numerous to risk. However, pilots who have ridden along in auto-landing tests have reported that they strongly disliked the experience, because they felt that they had a lack of control of the situation.

      The US Navy and Air Force will likely be the first to have fully automated craft. Right now, the unmanned drones are mostly automated, and I think they handle take-off and landing on their own, with override capabilities on the part of the ground crew. The next generation of combat-capable craft, which will probably include fighters, will have a man in the loop for targeting and for emergency landing situations (and maybe not even that part), but that's about it.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    22. Re:sleepy? by HangingChad · · Score: 1
      What I really want is a small plane I can program to take me anywhere. Self-piloted aircraft with ground monitoring and emergency manual override. If it got in a pinch the ground crew could take over and if it was something really major, then go manual.

      Fit them with one of those parachute safety devices so you could land it safely if you ever had to push the big red button. A properly constructed composite craft should be able to float quite securely provided it doesn't auger in at 300 knots.

      I figure they could fly higher than normal jet liners to keep them out of the traffic pattern and have their own airports to land and take off, also to keep them away from big cities and commercial traffic.

      It would just be such a neat way to travel. Program your plane and flight path, snooze, watch movies, play video games and wake up where ever you wanted to go the next day. How cool would that be?

      --
      That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    23. Re:sleepy? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Yet they are able to respond perfectly in situations that they *are* programmed for. IE, engine out, wind shear, loss of one or more control surfaces, etc, all of which a human may train for, but is less likely than the computer to diagnose in a short period of time.
      Which is exactly why you have an autopilot AND a human pilot. One to handle the mundane, and the known emergencies, and the other to think how to handle the unknowns, should they arise.
      Even the human pilot is to a large degree an autopilot. Part of the reason commercial air travel is so safe is that the air carriers produce detailed manuals as to exactly what to do in the event of failures of just about any component you can think of. Pilots go to this first when something goes wrong. Leaning on the past experience of other pilots is better than trying to think of your own solution on the spur of the moment. But, just in case the answers not in there, the pilot is still able to think on his own of a solution (hopefully), and the autopilot can't.
      Remember, the #1 cause of aircraft accidents is "controlled flight into terrain".
      Which says that the real problem is not equipment failure, but a lack of situational awareness. This is not generally a problem in commercial flight, as they have equipment to detect both ground proximity below and ahead, even in complete Instrument Conditions. It's the general aviation pilots (like me) who misinterpret the weather, or hope it clears up, and then find themselves in the soup next to a mountain that have most of the CFITs.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    24. Re:sleepy? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      Flying that high would require you be above 50,000 feet, which for anything shorter than a few hundred miles would make for an uncomfortably sharp ascent/descent. In addition, pressurized cabins are required above 10,000 feet, and that adds to complexity, cost, and weight of the craft.

      Better would be to set up contained traffic lanes, where you would exist with normal traffic between 6000 and 10,000 feet before taking an 'offramp' of sorts to land at these alternate airports.

      Not a bad concept, though prohibitively expensive to set up. If you could figure out that part, you might be able to pull it off.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    25. Re:sleepy? by BeerCat · · Score: 1

      ...and the pilot is only there to feed the dog!

      --
      "She's furniture with a pulse"
    26. Re:sleepy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You wouldn't run an Airliner on WINCE."

      Win ME would be a much better choice. ;)

    27. Re:sleepy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "they're not subject to intimidation by armed thugs."

      and what of 133t haxorz?

    28. Re:sleepy? by B747SP · · Score: 1
      Recent Boeing and Airbus planes are already able to auto-takeoff, auto-land, and auto-navigate en route.

      No they can't. Pressing the TO/GA (Take Off/Go Around) switch on Boeings that have that feature merely selects take-off thrust. Someone still needs to accept and read back the take-off clearance, release the brakes, steer the thing onto and down the runway, observe speed indications and take a decision to rotate at a speed determined in pre-flight calculations dependant on things like passenger/freight/fuel load, runway length, aerodrome altitude, temperature, engine ratings, etc. Someone needs to watch the instruments and confirm that the thing actually does start flying, then call "Gear Up" once a positive rate of climb is confirmed. Then someone needs to fly it 'out of town' manually according to pre-advised and en-route instructions from ATC all the way reeling bits of flap back in and making (or commanding) assorted trim adjuctments (though the aircraft will generally trim themselves pretty well). Typically, a 'modern' (and they really aren't very modern) Boeing or Airbus or similar is flown manually to cruise altitude, or at least to a point where they're pointed out of town, have their final clearance to climb to initial cruise, and the autopilots have been told to take over. The Captain leaves his seat when they're at or near cruise, and heads back to read his newspaper. (I'm talking long haul International ops with a couple of second officers on board teething at the bit to get a sit in the big seat).

      AFAIK, the only thing they can't do is take direction from Air Traffic Control.

      Actually, they can do that. Nav computers are routinely programmed from the operations office via ACARS before flight. Of course, pilots still check once on board. Moves are afoot to come up with an all electronic ATC system that obviates the requirement for voice communication. Delivering instructions direct to the aircraft is entirely possible, but not AFAIK, in actual service yet.

      I'd like to see FedEx or UPS go fully robotic, so that a few years from now, commercial passenger planes would do likewise.

      I'm confused by this. You're on slashdot, so you probably work with computers, yet you're advocating allowing computers to take over something that they're clearly gonna fubar up in a really really big way. I've yet to see a computer that can reliably make me a cup of decent coffee - I'll be buggered (not literally, it's Australian slang) if I'm gonna let a computer fly me anywhere!!!

      --
      I find your ideas intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
  5. Re:Yawn... by Suburbanpride · · Score: 0
    I do kinda wonder why people do these things. I mean I would love to sial arounf the world for the personal experience. but it seems to be the branson/fosset et al enjoy being in the lime light more than anything else.

    That being siad, I do think its Kinda cool that why can fly arounf the world without refueling.

    --
    sorry 'bout the mess...
  6. First solo JET flight. by Bombcar · · Score: 4, Informative

    I don't know if that's important, but it is the first solo non-refueling JET flight.

    1. Re:First solo JET flight. by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      Actually, it is important. I don't think it has been done with props. The point was to get the pilot back as quickly as possible. Voyager wasn't a solo flight, there were two people that could trade shifts.

    2. Re:First solo JET flight. by Martin+Blank · · Score: 3, Informative

      ...and end up basically hating each other by the end of the flight. Imagine sitting for several days in a closet with your significant other, not really able to move much, with little to no privacy, no washing, no change of clothes, and no way of just getting away for even a few minutes. As I recall, their relationship did not last much after the flight, and soured even further afterward.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
  7. First *jet* non-stop, wasn't it? by r.jimenezz · · Score: 3, Informative
    "to be the first solo non-stop flight around the world without refuelling."

    I was under the impression Rutan himself achieved this many moons ago. This one would the first jet-powered craft to do it, though.

    --
    The revolution will not be televised.
    1. Re:First *jet* non-stop, wasn't it? by ptomblin · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, that was Burt Rutan's brother Dick, and Jeanne Yeager (who is Chuck's daughter, I believe). That was the first non-stop non-refueled flight, but it wasn't solo.

      --
      The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
    2. Re:First *jet* non-stop, wasn't it? by wasted · · Score: 3, Informative

      ...and Jeanne Yeager (who is Chuck's daughter, I believe).

      Not according to this site. It seems that they are not related.

  8. Its good to see innovation by oirtemed · · Score: 2, Interesting

    With so many stagnant, marketing-centric companies out there, it is good to see some real technical innovation come about. This is what the early inventors were all about, including the Wright Brothers; doing it to see if it can be done. Though I don't doubt that there is some profit motive, the market for this can't be the only motivator.

    1. Re:Its good to see innovation by DarkMantle · · Score: 1

      Though I don't doubt that there is some profit motive

      Think about it, any long distance you want to travel now stops for a layover, if for no reason then to refuel. Sometimes it's as far as that plane goes tho.

      Now there'll be no need to stop on a flight from New York to Tokyo.

      --
      DarkMantle I been bored, so I started a blog.
    2. Re:Its good to see innovation by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Though I don't doubt that there is some profit motive, the market for this can't be the only motivator.

      No, it's not about the market for the type of aircraft that he's actually flying on this trip - but of course it's about showcasing his team's technical skills and creativity. It's marketing, and it's all about keeping the name in the press. Certainly there's proof of concept and lots to learn, but he's got a lot of other irons in the fire, too. It's a lot like when a major movie studio makes an Oscar-winning "art" film that absolutely loses money directly, but which serves the companies larger efforts and bottom line because of credibility.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    3. Re:Its good to see innovation by dmadole · · Score: 2, Informative

      There was already no need to stop on a flight from New York to Tokyo:

      You already didn't need to stop on a flight from New York to Tokyo:

      American Airlines launches New York - Tokyo flights

      Note that this is old news. It takes about twelve and a half hours.

    4. Re:Its good to see innovation by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      While I agree with the GP that it is good to see innovation, it is already possible to get pretty far nonstop. There is a Singapore Kennedy to Changi flight that lasts 18.5 hours and covers 10,335 miles (16,670 km).
      That was in June 2004, there may be longer flights now. That is very close to half the radius of the earth. Notwithstanding great circle routing, it is possible to get from almost any major city to any other major city nonstop. Most of the reason that we don't do nonstop flights these days is not due to technological reasons but due to monetary ones. It can be, but is not always, more profitable to use hub and spoke even on these long routes. You just have a much bigger hub and much bigger spokes.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    5. Re:Its good to see innovation by DarkMantle · · Score: 1

      Exactly, Currently the reason they stop is a longer flight requires more fuel. Airplane feul usage is relational to weight. More fuel is used in the first half of the flight then the second half as the plane weighs less as it uses fuel.

      --
      DarkMantle I been bored, so I started a blog.
  9. Bathroom? by ckeck · · Score: 1

    Hows he use the bathroom? Hope he doesn't get diarehha...haha (sp?)

    1. Re:Bathroom? by swimin · · Score: 1

      Its only 80 hours, you can easily and safely stop the solids, and this can stop all problems with liquids.

    2. Re:Bathroom? by edubarr · · Score: 2, Funny
      Hope he doesn't get diarehha...haha (sp?)

      Don't worry... you misspelled it right

    3. Re:Bathroom? by Chris+Daniel · · Score: 4, Funny
      Hows he use the bathroom? Hope he doesn't get diarehha...

      You mean you hope he doesn't fly over your house ;-)

      --
      Don't blame me -- I voted for Roslin.
  10. Spruce Goose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An around the world flight in one of these would be much more of an accomplishment.
    http://www.sprucegoose.org/aircra ft_artifacts/exhi bits.html

  11. Any landing you walk away from... by Vombatus · · Score: 5, Insightful
    one of the few air strips long enough for the flyer to take off successfully

    I hope they have a few air strips along the way that are long enough for the flyer to land successfully - you know, in case of emergency.

    --
    This sig is intentionally blank
    1. Re:Any landing you walk away from... by FuturePastNow · · Score: 2, Informative

      GlobalFlyer's takeoff weight of 22,000lbs is more than six times its empty weight, so once some of that fuel is gone it will be able to use a much shorter runway.

      --
      Give a man fire, and you warm him for the night. Set a man on fire, and you warm him for the rest of his life.
    2. Re:Any landing you walk away from... by swimin · · Score: 1

      Landing isn't the problem in most cases. Its the takeoffs that use a large amount of runway

    3. Re:Any landing you walk away from... by the+pickle · · Score: 3, Informative

      Landing generally takes anywhere from 3/4 to as little as about 1/3 of the length required to get off the ground. Obviously this depends a lot on the plane's design, but I've yet to see ANY fixed-wing aircraft that requires more runway to land than to take off. (The space shuttle doesn't count.)

      When you're landing, you can dump your (remaining) fuel and land at a much lighter weight, thereby giving the brakes less energy to dissipate. Also, brakes are typically far more efficient at destroying thrust than engines are at creating it. Finally, most aircraft have other thrust- and lift-destroying devices that can be deployed during a maximum-performance landing (thrust reversers, speed brakes, spoilers, etc.), all of which help to reduce the landing distance, but don't help takeoffs at all.

      The point of this long-windedness is basically to say that they won't have any problem finding emergency landing strips in the (fairly unlikely, IMO) event that they need one.

      IAAP&CFI.

      p

    4. Re:Any landing you walk away from... by Mike99 · · Score: 1

      I hope they have a few air strips along the way that are long enough for the flyer to land successfully - you know, in case of emergency.

      I'm sure landing would not be a problem. A large amount of the weight at take off would be fuel. After jettisoning any fuel this plane could land on a regular size runway anywhere in the world.

    5. Re:Any landing you walk away from... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't want to walk away you can land in as short a space as the height of the plane.

    6. Re:Any landing you walk away from... by solarium_rider · · Score: 1

      The point of this long-windedness is basically to say that they won't have any problem finding emergency landing strips in the (fairly unlikely, IMO) event that they need one.
      It probablly has a slightly higher chance of failing since it only has one engine.

      --
      -- How many sigs are as useless as this one?
    7. Re:Any landing you walk away from... by the+pickle · · Score: 1

      Turbine engine failures due to anything other than foreign object damage (FOD) are incredibly rare. So rare, in fact, that the failure of any turbine powerplant on a US-certificated aircraft is required by law to be reported to the FAA.

      He's a LOT more likely to run out of gas than to have an engine failure.

      p

    8. Re:Any landing you walk away from... by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Being unable to walk away would technically make it 'crashing', not 'landing'.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    9. Re:Any landing you walk away from... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A craft that weigh 22000 lbs at takeoff and less than half (about a quarter) at landing could land in a tenth of the aistrip needed for takeoff. I wouldn't be surprised if the plane was able to fly at low altitude with little fuel with a speed of 100 km/h.

      Calin

    10. Re:Any landing you walk away from... by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Any landing you walk away from...
      Many people have probably heard the saying that any landing you can walk away from is a good landing. But most have probably not heard the addendum which is that an excellent landing is one in which you can use the plane again.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    11. Re:Any landing you walk away from... by the+pickle · · Score: 1

      With the aspect ratio of that wing, I wouldn't be surprised either. Heck, that airplane probably has a glide ratio of about 30- or 40-to-1, or about 3-4x that of commercial airliners, and about 1/2 to 3/4 that of top-notch gliders/sailplanes.

      p

  12. Looks to me by ICECommander · · Score: 4, Interesting

    like Scaled Composites is going to be the high-tech aerospace leader, first SpaceShipOne then this.
    Maybe they will get to Mars before NASA?

    --
    All your Sybase are belong to us.
    1. Re:Looks to me by Colgate2003 · · Score: 4, Informative
      Scaled Composites is a high-tech aerospace leader. Check out their projects page.

      Those are just the ones that they can tell you about. Scaled is where the Skunk Works and other such places go when even they can figure something out.

    2. Re:Looks to me by Colgate2003 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      sorry:

      Scaled is where the Skunk Works and other such places go when even they can't figure something out.

    3. Re:Looks to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I've never understood why people think of rutan as some sort of god of legendary designer when it comes to these things.

      Anyone in the Aerospace industry who knows anything about aircraft design can tell you that while rutan has had a few good designs, it isnt like he knows more than anyone else, but rather he has had the balls to go ahead and build things. Which is why he is on the map today.

      This aircraft is designed and built for a single mission. The structure is highly specialized and the craft does not have to take into account for any wide range of CG margins.

      Compare this to a commercial airliner like the new Boeing 777-200LR which must be able to fly at several different loading conditions over an incredible range... or perhaps the Lockheed-Martin F-35, in which one basic airframe is meeting the needs of 3 different branches of the military. The guys at Scaled may be good, however they arent any better than the guys at Boeing/Lockheed

    4. Re:Looks to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's very long way from sub-orbital flight to interplanetary probe. Guess why two Mars Exploration Rovers cost $800 mil and Cassini/Huygens costs $3,2 billion.

    5. Re:Looks to me by grozzie2 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      While they may be pretty good at designing / building one off special purpose aircraft, the track record in commercial aircraft is quite radically different. Starship was basically a Rutan design, done for beechcraft, and it even started into production. It was _such_ a good airplane, beech chose to buy them all back, and destroy them, rather than continue forward carrying the product liability risk of having that aircraft in commercial service. I wouldn't exactly call that a resounding vote of confidence from a former MAJOR customer.

      This project is a great example. It's been waiting _how long_ for a weather window that will actually produce conditions where they expect the airplane to survive the trip ? It's a special purpose, one off, designed for one mission, flown in optimum conditions. After it's flown that mission, it's really no good for anything but wasting space in a hangar somewhere, because it's to flimsy to park outside exposed to the elements.

    6. Re:Looks to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Starship simply proved that aviation customers are luddites when it comes to technological advances. The Starship was the first commercially produced fixed wing aircraft to make wide-spread use of composites. That scared a lot of people away. Today, Boeing and Airbus are using composites in a big way.

      Do you remember the screaming when Mooney came out with the Porsche powered model? One lever control - push to go faster, pull to go slower - was viewed as pure evil. There is no reason to have to mess with power, prop, and mixture. Why do you think we are still flying behind 1930's technology engines?

    7. Re:Looks to me by grozzie2 · · Score: 1
      Actually, the starship scared raytheon away because it started suffering from lamination issues, and they determined it was only a matter of time till there was an inflight breakup due to those issues. It was preferred to not continue to carry that product liability, especially in the USA. They felt it was far more cost effective to replace them all with a brand new KingAir, rather than keep the risk of facing a jury in a product liability suit, for a product that they knew was starting to show problems, even before it was actually into wide use.

      Like it or not, the aviation industry in america is driven by the product liability lawyers. Until you guys learn to use the precious 'right to bear arms' and start shooting lawyers, it's gonna stay that way.

  13. I can almost see by EdwinBoyd · · Score: 4, Funny

    A frazzled billionare being extracted from the remnants of his mangled craft, breathlessly explaining to a throng of reporters. "It was going quite well, but the wind just picked up so suddenly we didn't have a chance. Damnable shame, ah well on to my next silly adventure/reality show"

    1. Re:I can almost see by MarkTina · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ahh Branson's my hero ... one of the few mega rich types where you see him spending money on and doing things we all wish to do but can't afford all the while enjoying himself ... rather than most of the other mega rich types who you see do sod all with their money and then die.

    2. Re:I can almost see by funkmonkeyfunk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, let's celebrate the spurious frittering away of wealth by the rich! Hooray for Mr. Branson for funding a school-boy dream project that will help his recently announced space-tourism company. Hooray for Steve Forbes for his ridiculous megalomaniacal presidential runs. ( I mean, who hasn't wanted to be president?) And Kudos to The Trump for walking away from bankruptcy with a cool $2 million a year at the expense of investors. Paris Hilton take note - you are a star every time you drop an absurd amount on... well whatever Paris Hilton spends her money on.

      Really, all these folks are much better than those dull philanthropic types like Oprah , Bill Gates href=http://www.gatesfoundation.org/default.htm>Bi ll Gates and George Soros. What fun is there in championing human kidness and decency, public health and global economic fairness?

      This world is full of people looking to satisfy their own ego-centric desires. Some have the moolah to fulfill the big ones, and some of them are more fun, but it is merely a question of scale. Branson is little better than the tight-fisted Krocs or Waltons. The really amazing people are the ones who use their wealth to do something to raise up their fellow humans.

    3. Re:I can almost see by funkmonkeyfunk · · Score: 1
    4. Re:I can almost see by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      George Soros is a philanthropic type? Sheesh, and here I thought he was a convicted felon and, in the words of a Thai source, "a kind of Dracula. He sucks blood from the people," after he attacked the Thai and Malaysian currencies.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    5. Re:I can almost see by funkmonkeyfunk · · Score: 1

      Okay - so maybe ol' George is a dodgy example in as much as "philanthropy" "charity." He does have some insane quest for personal wealth, and certainly hasn't always been the most, um, humanitarian in the process of building it. But isn't that how most people get super-uber-wealthy?

      He does, however, give a fantastic amount of money to *charitable* (and perhaps a little too often political) causes like marijuana inititiaves and democracy in the Eastern bloc.

      My point was not that Soros is some rich version of Gandhi, merely that one's wealth can be put to better, more "righteous," causes than being some extreme adventurer bozo.

    6. Re:I can almost see by jcr · · Score: 1

      Yeah, let's celebrate the spurious frittering away of wealth by the rich!

      Have you considered therapy to address these jealousy issues of yours?

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    7. Re:I can almost see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear funkmonkeyfunk,

      You assume, of course, that Richard Branson and Steve Forbes don't do enormous amounts of good works. That is a fallacious assumption. Forbes, in particular, comes from a family tradition of enormous giving to "needy" causes.

      Hilton is a slut whose spending is a drop in ocean of the worlds finances.

      Krocs and Waltons are tight fisted? That explains Ronald McDonald House and I suppose the tens of thousands of millionaires created by the businesses of the Krocs and Waltons don't count, huh?

      You are correct that the world is full of people looking to satisfy their ego-centric desires. Some do it by posting their neo-Socialiast anit-capitalist crybaby notions that the ultra rich are somehow lesser people than we peons.

    8. Re:I can almost see by MarkTina · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, you sound quite bitter ... however I still say Branson is a nice guy, the main reason that clinches it is when he gave my cousin and her husband first class tickets to fly to China and collect their adopted baby, they never asked him for the tickets, he just heard about them somehow and gave them a call ... a cheap thing for him in terms of money, but returns huge kama points.

    9. Re:I can almost see by funkmonkeyfunk · · Score: 1

      That is a very kind thing for Branson to do. Judging from all the venom I have evoked from folks, my attempt at hyperbole was not taken as such. I do not in fact believe that the uber-wealthy do a lot of "spurious frittering away of wealth" - that ain't how you get, and stay, rich. Nor did I wish to imply that Sir Richard or any other multi-millionaire was *by default* a Bad Person (or that Soros, et al were Good People). I am sure every mega-billionaire has done some helping out of his fellow humans - as you have noted. However, I do think many could do more. To use someoene else's far more elequent prose - Donella Meadows, one of the great thinkers on sustainability, wrote once in her Pulitzer nominated column: ...the top 20 percent of the wealthy in the United States could give over $100 billion a year more than they now do (that's twice what I assumed the billionaires could give to end world poverty), and their fortunes would continue to grow. Read the whole piece here: http://www.pcdf.org/meadows/billionaire.html

  14. And in yesterday's news... by ABeowulfCluster · · Score: 1

    http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/2 7/1930240&tid=14 "Solo Flyer ready for Takeoff Monday"

  15. First SOLO non-stop unrefueled flight... by wasted · · Score: 4, Informative

    Mr. Rutan was accompanied by Ms. Yeager.

    1. Re:First SOLO non-stop unrefueled flight... by n6mod · · Score: 3, Informative

      And it was Burt's brother Dick who was the pilot.

      --
      You have violated Robot's Rules of Order and will be asked to leave the future immediately.
  16. First Solo Flight... by Acius · · Score: 2

    This kind of reminds me of the world's longest cheesecake record that someone set here a little while ago. I mean, sure, it's great to have a world record, but who cares? First solo, non-stop flight around the world, without refueling. Remove any one clause, and it's already been done.

    All that said, it's a big engineering challenge to build planes that can do this. Improvement in aviation technology is still a Good Thing. So good luck to him.

    --
    Acius the unfamous
    1. Re:First Solo Flight... by CA_Jim · · Score: 1

      We should find out if he's right-handed or left-handed. That way, there is still ONE more aviation record to break.

    2. Re:First Solo Flight... by B3ryllium · · Score: 1

      Maybe I'll be able to do the first solo, naked, non-stop flight around the world, without refueling.

    3. Re:First Solo Flight... by corngrower · · Score: 1

      How do you know that Fosset hasn't ditched his clothes and is not right now flying naked?

    4. Re:First Solo Flight... by the+pickle · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but remove any one clause, and doing it is also a lot less impressive (and, frankly, trivial).

      This is the last great milestone in powered fixed-wing aviation. There are a lot of milestones left elsewhere, but there isn't a whole lot else you can do with an airplane that runs on dead dino juice.

      Hey, how long 'till the first solo non-stop round-the-world human-powered flight? Without eating!

      p

    5. Re:First Solo Flight... by Jeffrey+Baker · · Score: 1

      It's worse than it appears, actually. Without removing any clauses, a solo, non-stop flight around the world, without refueling has already been done. It's only that the previous flights have all been either spacecraft or lighter-than-air balloons.

  17. Re:good editing! by PuppiesOnAcid · · Score: 1
    either way shows very poor editing skills.
    Or maybe he just made a mistake?
  18. Article Summary is Wrong by swimin · · Score: 1

    This is not an attempt at the first flight around the world without refueling. If it is, We should check out Burt Rutan for alzheimer's. See Dick Rutan's Webpage for more info.

    1. Re:Article Summary is Wrong by swimin · · Score: 2, Funny

      Or maybe I should have read the article summary a little more carefully.

  19. First Solo flight by Marscity9 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think that the flight you are refering to was a two person flight, and they managed to go around the world, although they had some problems with fuel management. Although no one has even flown solo around the world, he thought that that would be too easy, so he decided to challange himself, and use a jet instead of a prop. I suppose this could lead to more innovation in the idea of engine efficiency, but not all that much else (not to say that efficiency is a small matter).

    1. Re:First Solo flight by Alien+Being · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "he decided to challange himself, and use a jet instead of a prop"

      I'm sure it was an engineering challenge, but it makes the flight a lot easier. The Voyager flight was over 200 hours.

    2. Re:First Solo flight by the+pickle · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, not only has a solo circumglobal flight been done before, Fossett was the one who did it, albeit in a balloon.

      p

    3. Re:First Solo flight by the+pickle · · Score: 2, Informative

      Length isn't the only reason. The Global Flyer's service ceiling is about 50,000 feet. Voyager's was 11,000 (it was unpressurised). Even if Global Flyer's speed weren't so much faster, being above all the weather has some pretty huge advantages on its own.

      p

    4. Re:First Solo flight by uss_valiant · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Actually, not only has a solo circumglobal flight been done before, Fossett was the one who did it, albeit in a balloon.
      Maybe the first man who did it solo, but the kudos go to Bertrand Piccard and his co-pilot Brian Jones who did the thing first, 3 years before.

      Betrand Piccard is also an adventurer and pioneer like his father and grandfather. The next thing he plans to do is flying around the world, non-stop, in a solar powered aircraft. The project, Solar Impulse should also encourage the use of alternative energies.
  20. Party in a plane! by DrKyle · · Score: 1

    Sounds like he'll be having a hell of a time trying to stay up for 80 hours surviving off his Strayberry Milkshakes! I'm guessing that he'll stink like a sailor by the time he's done though.

  21. Re:good editing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Steve Fossett is piloting the craft, intended (as reader aallan puts it, is for this "to be the first solo non-stop flight around the world without refuelling."

    piloting the craft, intended is for this. Come again?

  22. Voyager? by corngrower · · Score: 3, Informative
    I remember when the first non-stop, non-refueled flight around the world was made back in about 1980. There were two pilots on board that time. One of the Rutans and a woman, Yeager, I believe.

    That plane was so loaded with fuel on takeoff, that the rate of climb was very very slow, maybe 150 ft/minute. The wings, which were loaded with fuel would droop down and had to be supported by small wheels at the wingtips until the plane gathered enough speed for the wings to develop lift.

    I wish Fosset good luck on this journey. Things will be touch and go for awhile until the fuel load has been lightened and the plane becomes responsive. A lot of things can go wrong, but hopefully improved technology will make things easier and improve his chance of success for this round the world flight.

    1. Re:Voyager? by FuturePastNow · · Score: 4, Informative

      Voyager was flown by Burt Rutan's brother, Dick, and Jeanna Yeager (no relation to Chuck) in 1986.

      As for the responsiveness issue, I bet that's why they delayed the flight for so long because of weather. To get clear skies for the first few hours. GlobalFlyer's service ceiling is listed as 50,000 feet, which should put it above the weather for most of the flight (Voyager was unpressurised and could fly no higher than 11,000 feet, and so was much more subject to the weather).

      --
      Give a man fire, and you warm him for the night. Set a man on fire, and you warm him for the rest of his life.
    2. Re:Voyager? by pliny3 · · Score: 1

      as another poster pointed out, it was Dick Rutan and Jeannie Yeager. The plane is now hanging in the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum. It does not look like a typical aircraft -- the aspect ratio of the wings is very high.

    3. Re:Voyager? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There were no wheels at the wingtips, but there should have been. On takeoff, the wings dragged on the ground and one or both winglets were damaged and eventually fell off. Didn't stop the flight, though.

  23. Re:good editing! by bryanthompson · · Score: 2, Insightful

    err, well... I sortof have to take credit for the original mistake. my t key sticks sometimes. *whoops*

    It got accepted, and I read through it again, then emailed the editor on duty (daddypants) before it went out to you non-subscribers... I hoped it'd be fixed in time.

  24. First? by stratjakt · · Score: 1

    The shuttle has orbitted the globe nonstop a few dozen times a pop without refueling, as have many other manned craft.

    So have lighter-than-air craft, and if I'm not mistaken, propeller driven craft.

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    1. Re:First? by 9Nails · · Score: 1

      Could you be talking about a balloon that tried to go around the world without stop? I don't recall that as a success. But I do recall the past attempt at a two-maned aircraft circling the globe non-stop without refueling.

      The shuttle doesn't orbit under it's own power. It uses two massive boosters to get to that altitude, so that's cheating!

  25. Re:Please hold your arms away from your body... by cwebster · · Score: 1

    if you fly your own plane (privately under part 91 rules) you can take just about anything you want. including guns.

  26. What kind of jet? by catisonh · · Score: 2, Interesting

    All of this talk has looked over one important aspect: the jet engine he is using on his aircraft. If I remember correctly, jet engines are fuel hogs, so:

    A) What kind of jet is he using?

    B) How is he storing all that fuel?

    --
    This post has been filtered for sanity.
    1. Re:What kind of jet? by karnal · · Score: 1

      B) How is he storing all that fuel?

      I believe that part, at least, was answered in the article. Notably, the picture at the bottom explains some of the more "technical" details for inquiring minds.

      Nothing to see here......

      --
      Karnal
    2. Re:What kind of jet? by xlv · · Score: 3, Informative
      A) What kind of jet is he using?

      B) How is he storing all that fuel?

      Both answers can be found in the plane description at http://www.virginatlanticglobalflyer.com/Aircraft/ Introduction/index.jsp:
      The aircraft is a trimaran-like construction with two huge external 'booms' which hold the landing gear, and 5,454 pounds of fuel on either side of the pilot's cockpit in the centre on top of which is the single Williams turbofan jet engine.

    3. Re:What kind of jet? by spankey51 · · Score: 5, Informative

      The "Jet" or "gas turbine" is a turbofan engine similar to those fitted to small corporate aircraft like Learjets... They are not gas hogs.
      To be clearer: they are at low altitudes. At 45,000 feet (Global Flyer's cruising altitude,) the fuel efficiency is impecable.

      Fuel is stored in tanks in the wings, pontoons and forward fuselage... basically, the plane is a fishtank for a couple hours until he can get some fuel out of the wings and make it into a more "flyable" bomb.

      If internal compustion engines were more efficient than gas turbines, why weren't they implemented in the airline industry?

      Furthermore, I'd much rather have a turbine because they have so few moving parts... the simplest have one! Less to breakdown on you while you are pissing out the window into an infinite void of pacific waves 45,000 feet below...

      --
      -ubuntu others as you would have others ubuntu you.
    4. Re:What kind of jet? by the+pickle · · Score: 1

      It's a Williams FJ44 turbofan. More about that at the Global Flyer Wikipedia page. Fairly common engine these days, used on (or planned for) several other light jets.

      And for the thrust you get out of them, jets -- particularly high-bypass turbofans, which are almost like a direct-drive ducted turboprop -- are FAR more efficient than piston engines. Granted, they *do* have to store more fuel on this than on Voyager, but they've enlarged the wings a bit and probably have more room in the fuselage, since there's only one pilot rather than two. There's some discussion of that engineering difficulty at the Scaled project page.

      Now, keep in mind that Yeager and Rutan took a WEEK to do this in 1987 in Voyager. Fossett is going to do it in just over three days (that's twice as fast), on only marginally more fuel.

      p

    5. Re:What kind of jet? by Jozer99 · · Score: 1

      There was a good article in Wired that answers all of your questions. He is using a really, really teeny jet engine that is one of the most efficient in the world (the 2nd most, I believe). The fuel is stored in 2 side fusalages. Most of the weight of the aircraft is in fact the fuel, and the thing is so light and frail that it can only be flown once (not including the very gentle testing flights).

    6. Re:What kind of jet? by Jozer99 · · Score: 1

      Also, to answer the 80 hours question: He has said that the thing basically flies itself except for the couple of hours after takeoff and before landing when the thing is struggling to change altitude. He will take cat naps during the 65 or so interviening hours, if he can sleep with the low altitude turbulance and noice from an uninsulated turbine 4 feet behind his head. I imagine he has some high quality legal stimulants to keep him aware when he needs to be.

    7. Re:What kind of jet? by jd · · Score: 1

      I believe that he stocked up on baked beans and chili powder for the flight.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    8. Re:What kind of jet? by OverlordQ · · Score: 1

      yes, one single moving part that if it has a hairline fracture almost guarantees to shread your entire engine and most of the rest of your plane when it goes.

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    9. Re:What kind of jet? by joib · · Score: 1


      yes, one single moving part that if it has a hairline fracture almost guarantees to shread your entire engine and most of the rest of your plane when it goes.


      Yes, that is one failure mode of a jet.

      However, what is relevant here is the reliability of the entire package, not dramatized descriptions of single failures. On average jets are about 7 times as reliable as the piston engines. Another benefit is that while jets are not as frugal as pistons, the fuel is vastly cheaper and safer than high octane avgas.

    10. Re:What kind of jet? by Alioth · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In terms of thermodynamic efficiency, the best engines in general use were the massive 'corncob' engines used in piston engined airliners. Not jet (turbofan engines) - well, with one notable exception of course.

      The reason why airliners went to jets rather than staying with the more fuel efficient piston engines is that turbine engines (not just jets, but turboprop engines) are much smaller and lighter for a given amount of horsepower. Piston engines large enough to power an airliner the size of a B777 would be impractially large, even if they were actually fuel efficient. Additionally, propeller driven aircraft can't fly at high percentages of the speed of sound very well.

      Until fairly recently, turbine engines were really horrible when it came to fuel efficency. Small turbines still are pretty awful - compare the fuel burn of a Piper Malibu with the piston engine with the Piper Malibu with the Jetprop DLX conversion. The Jetprop DLX conversion is worse in every respect *except* for the weight of the engine and the reliability and the vibration levels (turbines tend to be a lot more reliable). It burns a hell of a lot more fuel and costs a hell of a lot more to maintain. It's only with the giant turbofans that power the B777 have jet engines got anywhere close to piston engines for thermodynamic efficiency. And the huge engines the B777 are fitted with are pretty damn efficient.

      The one notable exception is Concorde. At supersonic speeds, its straight turbojet engines were the most thermodynamically efficient turbine engines ever made, and to my knowlege they still hold that title. This is one of the reasons why Concorde was an (engineering, not commercial!) success, but the Russian Tu-144 was not; the Tu-144 couldn't even maintain supersonic speed without running afterburners. Concorde could supercruise at Mach 2. (Also, contrary to popular belief, the Tu-144 was not a copy of Concorde, it was only superficially similar to Concorde but was different in almost every other important respect).

  27. Darn it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was expecting a headline something like "Fossett bites it in a Steve Austin style crash." 6 million buck would have not done him any good either.

  28. Hmmmm.... looks like we've seen that before by FerakIII · · Score: 1

    Check out the two websites in question: Voyager and the Virgin thingy

    Doesn't the Global flyer look pretty much like the Voyager with a jet engine stuck on top?

  29. Next... first while wearing tutu by simetra · · Score: 4, Funny
    First solo flight around the world wearing a tutu.
    Next will be first solo flight around the world wearing a tutu while humming "Windy"... Who's walking down the streets of the city, smiling at every body she sees... yadda yadda

    Then, first solo flight around the world while building a little ship inside a bottle......

    --

    "Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
    1. Re:Next... first while wearing tutu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or going round the world in a little ship, IN a bottle.

    2. Re:Next... first while wearing tutu by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      alot of slashdotters would be qualified to do something we might call the solo mile-high-club all the way around the world, typing with the other hand

    3. Re:Next... first while wearing tutu by Anynomous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Ah, the qualifiers.

      Qualifiers are a typical part of American culture. Everywhere you go you see things advertised as the biggest, largest, heaviest, ... but with enough qualifying adverbs and adjectives tagged on to make the substantive sink in a sea of mercury.

      They're never really lying, but always boasting.

      --
      I'm not a coward by any name.
  30. Re:good editing! by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm starting to get the impression that the editors inbox is so overflowing with crap, or their mail client is just so shite its unbelievable.

    The amount of people like yourself who HAVE attempted to get things fixed is remarkable, I wonder if theres anyone that HAS managed to get a story modified/cancelled before it hits the front page?

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
  31. Re:good editing! by Darth+Maul · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    There's also an unclosed parenthesis in the end of the paragraph. Man, Slashdot has really gone downhill lately. Do the editors not even read these comments and make corrections? It'd be one thing for dupes and mistakes to happen every now and then, but it's becoming the norm. It's like they don't even care about correct grammar, spelling, or unique postings.

    And they're so late in all the interesting stories anyways. Back in the day (I joined in, what, 1998?) it was the only geek site work checking. Not anymore, s'pose.

    --
    --- witty signature
  32. Shame about the refueling by QuantumG · · Score: 3, Informative

    The fastest jet plane in the world is still the SR71 Blackbird. It flew at Mach 3.35 or 2,275 mph (3,660 km/h). The circumference of the earth is 24,859.82 miles (40,008 km). So that means the Blackbird would do a flight around the world in 11 hours. Unfortunately it only had a range of 2,590 nm (4,800 km), so it would have to refuel at least 9 times. In a way, it's amazing that someone can build a plane that can carry enough fuel and still do the trip in less than 8x the time.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:Shame about the refueling by Alien+Being · · Score: 2, Informative
    2. Re:Shame about the refueling by PaulBu · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately it only had a range of 2,590 nm

      Before I realized that 'nm' are "nautical miles" (being a bit confused by 'km' right next to 'em), I thought it stood for nanometers... ;-) Would be a REALLY bad range for a plane, but being able to control it down to the third digit IS remarkable ;-) ).

      I would not even go on the old "Soviet Russian" joke (from real Russia, back in Soviet times) -- "Why, so short? Nope, so RED!" this time ;-)

      Paul B.

    3. Re:Shame about the refueling by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      not a jet.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    4. Re:Shame about the refueling by Alien+Being · · Score: 1

      Why not?

    5. Re:Shame about the refueling by NormalVisual · · Score: 3, Informative

      More interesting still is that the plane is about a foot or so longer while flying at operational speed than on the ground, owing to the frictional heat. This is the reason for the grooves in the fuselage - they allow the skin to expand uniformly instead of trying to curl up. The SR's also leak fuel like sieves until they can get up to speed and the tanks seal properly, thus one of the first actions taken after takeoff is a midair refuelling, shortly followed by the proverbial leap to hyperspace.

      Kelly Johnson was one extremely smart guy.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    6. Re:Shame about the refueling by Jeffrey+Baker · · Score: 1

      The SR-71 was a bad mother. The last flight of an SR-71 was from Palmdale AFB to Washington, D.C., in slightly over 1 hour.

    7. Re:Shame about the refueling by QuantumG · · Score: 0

      It's an air breathing rocket. The two work completely different.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    8. Re:Shame about the refueling by Alien+Being · · Score: 1

      "It's an air breathing rocket."

      So called "air breathing rockets" operate in different modes. It's only in rocket mode until it can go into ramjet/scramjet modes. The difference between a rocket and a jet is that a rocket carries it's own propellant.

    9. Re:Shame about the refueling by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Uhhh no. The difference between a rocket and a jet is that a jet is a mechanical device which creates a pressure differential between the front and the back of it. A rocket expels propellant to cause an opposite reaction.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    10. Re:Shame about the refueling by Alien+Being · · Score: 0, Redundant

      You're wrong again. All jets and rockets work by action/reaction. If you don't believe me, then maybe this will convince you.

    11. Re:Shame about the refueling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My cat's breath smells like cat food.

    12. Re:Shame about the refueling by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, that should be qualified as 'the last operational flight by an Air Force SR-71...' due to the fact that NASA flew them until quite recently (indeed it may still be flying them).

    13. Re:Shame about the refueling by boarder · · Score: 3, Informative

      Look, take it from a guy with a masters in aerospace engineering... the difference between a rocket engine and a jet engine is where they get their oxidizer. A jet carries its fuel and pulls oxygen from the air to create a propellant, then it combusts the two after a pressure differential for greater exit velocity (this incluedes a scramjet). A rocket carries both fuel and oxidizer and either combines the two in a varying ratio like a liquid engine or has them precombined like a solid. A jet needs exterior oxygen from the atmosphere, while a rocket can work anywhere. The other reply to your post got modded as redundant, when it should be informative. Just wanted to make sure nobody else thought you were correct.

      BTW, the idea that a jet creates a pressure differential to move it is very quaint; thanks for giving me a chuckle. That is how a wing gives lift, but it isn't how a jet works. Granted, if you didn't ignite any fuel in the accelerated airstream in the engine you might get some acceleration (never looked into that, but it sounds plausible), the majority of the force comes from expelling mass at high velocity.

      --
      IANAL, but I play one on /.
    14. Re:Shame about the refueling by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Come on now. Everything works by action and reaction.
      The ramjet does appear to be more like a jet than a rocket to me though. The difference from a conventional jet engine being that it depends upon forward motion to act as the compressor.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    15. Re:Shame about the refueling by Alien+Being · · Score: 1

      "Come on now. Everything works by action and reaction."

      Just be glad that you wrote that in an old thread where almost nobody will see it.

    16. Re:Shame about the refueling by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      See, you proved my point. Even in slashdot every action causes an equal and opposite reaction.
      Seriously though, enlighten me. What doesn't follow this basic scientific principle?
      Oh sure, politics, where an action causes inaction...inaction...inaction...violent overreaction.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    17. Re:Shame about the refueling by Alien+Being · · Score: 1

      "What doesn't follow this basic scientific principle?"

      The wings, a propeller. We're talking about basic physics, not metaphysics and not theoretical subatomic particle physics.

    18. Re:Shame about the refueling by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      The propeller is easy. You push the air backward, the plane moves forward. We use the shape of the wings to cause the air to move faster above the wing than below, causing lift. But the reaction force is still equal to and opposite to the acting force.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    19. Re:Shame about the refueling by Alien+Being · · Score: 1

      A prop with no pitch still produces thrust. A wing with no angle of attack still produces lift.

      In both cases, the effect is caused by acting on a fluid system. Yes, energy is always conserved, but the flow of energy in fluid is not a direct action/reaction.

  33. Re:Yawn... by chimpo13 · · Score: 1

    You should give it a try instead of just thinking about it. It's a short life and you only get one chance (Hindus excepted).

    I've read stories from people on sailboats who did it and loved it, and from people who did it and hated it. email me in 3 years and I'll give you my opinion if it's Good or Bad but since I'm not on a boat my opinion wouldn't count.

  34. Ok let me get this straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    They spent all kinds of money to design and build a machine that would consume fuel for 80 hours and then be where it started from.

    I propose that a more cost effective device. It would be made of baked clay. This rectangular object could be placed at any location. Not just on a runway. 80 hours later we could verify that it was it was still there.

    1. Re:Ok let me get this straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's about the journey, not the destination.

    2. Re:Ok let me get this straight by SlideGuitar · · Score: 1

      ha! very good.

    3. Re:Ok let me get this straight by jd · · Score: 1

      They tried that, but someone stuck a Golem scroll in its head and it ran off.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    4. Re:Ok let me get this straight by legirons · · Score: 1

      "I propose that a more cost effective device. It would be made of baked clay. This rectangular object could be placed at any location. Not just on a runway. 80 hours later we could verify that it was it was still there."

      And that after 24 hours, it would have gone around the world...

  35. Funny you should mention the Wright Brothers by joemc91 · · Score: 5, Informative

    They held up progress in aviation for almost 10 years in the US by making their plans secret and suing anybody who made planes. Their big patent fight was against Curtis Aircraft who invented ailerons, whereas the Wright's used wing-warping. During that time up till the early 20's, France took the lead in aviation, hence all the French sounding parts: fuselage, aileron, empenage, etc. Of course they contributed the most out of anyone in the old days but after the first few flyers there wasn't nearly as much innovation coming out of Wright Airplanes. The last truly succesful product they made, please correct me if I'm wrong, was the Wright Cyclone, a large radial engine used in WWII aircraft.

  36. Re:good editing! by TheBlacklion · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Even more imoportantly, how does one decide on the best "central location" for an around the world flight!

  37. Re:Please hold your arms away from your body... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    What if the guns are timed to fire between the propellor blades?.

  38. Flight over already! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Four Words: Out of Colombian Coffee

  39. Sleep on 80 hr flight? by firew0lfz · · Score: 1

    Uhm - does he have auto pilot on or anything during that time?

    The site is dying on me at the moment, but wouldn't he lose focus during that time? (Search on google for "How long can the human body stay awake" leads to this SciAm article.)

    --
    Try not to let life get in the way of living.
    1. Re:Sleep on 80 hr flight? by Tobril · · Score: 3, Funny

      I don't know how that guy is going to stay awake, but there is a student pilot here on campus that is making the same trip in a mod for Microsoft flight sim 2004. He has a plasma screen, cool joystick, a chair, and has to stay there and simulate the entire 80 hour trip. We are going to bug the hell out of this guy to keep him awake, too bad the real global flier pilot doesn't have an entire campus to inflict jackassery upon him.

    2. Re:Sleep on 80 hr flight? by corngrower · · Score: 1

      Back in the mid 60's a 'marathons' were quite popular. People would play pool or bowl or do something for days at a time without sleep, to see who could hold out the longest. Usually there was a bit of money involved.

  40. Re:good editing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or maybe he just made a mistake?

    people make mistakes, but seriously, it sticks out like a sore thumb, and how many 'mistakes' can one be allowed to make?

  41. Odd, I thought they did that already. by alexwcovington · · Score: 1

    It was 1961 and some dude named Yuri Gagarin flew all the way around the world and he never needed refueling...

    --
    (It's never too late to join the Renaissance)
    1. Re:Odd, I thought they did that already. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was 1961 and some dude named Yuri Gagarin flew all the way around the world and he never needed refueling...

      Well, ballistic flight is still flight. But I think you need to be in a gaseous atmosphere in order to fly.

      Examples:

      Bullets, arrows, weather balloons, zepplins, and aircraft all fly.

      Tuna, sharks, and other fish swim through water, but this does not count as flying. Except for those crazy fish that actually jump out of the water.

      The International Space Station and the Moon orbit the Earth, but they do not fly around the Earth. The Earth does not fly around the Sun, and the Sun does not fly through the Milky Way.

  42. Re:good editing! by karnal · · Score: 1

    it was the only geek site work checking.

    Oh, I'd bet a fair amount of money that work is when this site gets most of the hits.

    Ba-dum dum *crash*

    --
    Karnal
  43. First solo non-stop, non-refueled flight. by AJWM · · Score: 1

    Wasn't that done by Yuri Gagarin back in 1961? And he went around several times.

    Okay, I'll grant that the vehicle wasn't very usable after the flight.

    --
    -- Alastair
    1. Re:First solo non-stop, non-refueled flight. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And much of the vehicle was lost along the way.

  44. Re:Yawn... by Mantorp · · Score: 1

    My friend's Mom rode her bike from Colorado to Connecticut for her 60th birthday, just found out she went sky diving for her 65th. There's still time to be adventurous, I'm gonna be taking it easy for a few decades.

  45. Speed? by firew0lfz · · Score: 1
    with speeds averaging 285 mph

    Call me ignorant, but isn't that a bit slow? Why not fly faster? Educate me on this, anyone?

    --
    Try not to let life get in the way of living.
    1. Re:Speed? by Fritzed · · Score: 1

      The idea behind this airplane is to use just enough fuel to keep itself in the air. It's the only way for the plane to hold enough fuel to circumnavigate the globe.

      Popular Science did a great article on this a couple of months ago.

      -> Fritz

      --
      Spooooon!!!!!
    2. Re:Speed? by FuturePastNow · · Score: 1

      I imagine that speed is based on the maximum efficiency of the engine. It's only half the cruising speed of an airliner (which is also determined by efficiency, but those engines are a lot more powerful).

      --
      Give a man fire, and you warm him for the night. Set a man on fire, and you warm him for the rest of his life.
    3. Re:Speed? by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 1

      but isn't that a bit slow?

      Two words: Fuel economy.

      Remember, he's trying to make the flight without refueling. You can have speed and power, or you can have fuel economy. You can't generally have both.

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    4. Re:Speed? by corsec67 · · Score: 1

      the faster you go, the less mpg you get.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitic_drag
      they probably set the speed to be the exact optimal in terms of fuel usage.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
    5. Re:Speed? by Jozer99 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The plane is very light, hence very fragile. It can only handle incredibly low accelerations, turning and altitude changes without snapping appart. Also, the small jet engine is operating at the speed at which it has maximum effiency, which is not that fast. Think of it like cars: An F1 race car goes over 200 mph, but need refuling every mile or two. A VW Lupo maxes out at like 75 mph, but gets 70 MPG, or 600 miles per tank.

    6. Re:Speed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      A big factor in the design was making maximum use of the jet stream. At slower speeds, the jet stream contributes a greater percentage of the energy required for the trip.

      Good question BTW.

    7. Re:Speed? by macshome · · Score: 1

      F1 cars make it much further than a mile or two! On average they only stop 2 or 3 times per ~200 mile race for fuel.

      Now, top fuel dragsters... those go through some fuel!

    8. Re:Speed? by poopdeville · · Score: 2, Informative

      An F1 does not need to refule every two miles or so. F1's are some of the most efficient automobiles in the world right now. People think efficiency is about low gas milage, but it is really about wasting as little energy as possible. In a race, wasted energy corresponds to wasted time.

      Think of it this way: When you're on a curvy race track, like the Monaco GP, you're constantly accelerating, trying to go as fast as you can, until you come to a turn and have to brake hard. (You want really good brakes too, so that you can stop quickly) Then you have to accelerate again. The more efficiently you convert chemical energy into forward motion, the faster you reach top speed and coast a bit before slowing down as quickly as possible.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
  46. this makes no sense by Mantorp · · Score: 2, Interesting
    from this cnn article

    The flight plan was adjusted once more later Monday after Algeria closed a portion of its airspace, mission control director Kevin Stass said. The change, he said, would slightly reduce the overall length of the flight and save some of the 18,000 pounds of fuel aboard the single-engine jet.

    It can only mean that they were going out of their way to fly over Algeria in their initial plans, but that makes even less sense.

    1. Re:this makes no sense by general_boy · · Score: 2, Informative
      It can only mean that they were going out of their way to fly over Algeria in their initial plans, but that makes even less sense.

      Sure it can. IAAP (I am a pilot) and especially for a relatively risky flight like this, it makes good sense to sometimes go a bit out of one's way so as to fly a route closer to available facilities or over better terrain.

      Assuming the report is accurate, you could say the decreased fuel burn is the up side of the change. The down side is the new route may carry some increased risk. Otherwise I don't know why they wouldn't have chosen that route to begin with.

      BTW, on the real-time display I notice the flight appears to have deviated north 20 miles or so around the Chicago airspace en route to Detroit.

    2. Re:this makes no sense by the+pickle · · Score: 1

      The BBC said the original deviation over North Africa was to take advantage of more favourable winds. When Algeria closed the airspace, they had no choice but to take the more northerly (and apparently somewhat shorter) route.

      p

    3. Re:this makes no sense by Mantorp · · Score: 1
      OK, then it does make sense. I guess the BBC does a better job than CNN to explain things to knuckleheads like me, or the more likely story the person writing the CNN story didn't get it either.

      Thanks for clarifying.

  47. Re:Yawn... by chimpo13 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That was my line of thinking. Even after I almost died several times. Knowing people in their 20s and 30s getting cancer or dying from weird causes helped change my mind.

    Then getting epilepsy from the last time I almost died really pushed me. I can't be killed, but I can be injured.

    I might get hit by a bus this afternoon and I might live another 70 years.

  48. How far south do you have to be? by btempleton · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I mean any long-range plane can fly "around the world" at 89 degrees latitude, if it can get there. And these guys are not flying a great circle. So clearly there is some magic latitude that counts as going around the world, and some other that doesn't.

    So how do you possibly decide what it is? Is 45 degrees enough? Above a certain latitude, weather and national politics might create an issue of course. They are getting down to 15 degrees in Hawai`i so it looks "real" but how do you quantify it?

    --
    Has it been over a year since you last donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
    1. Re:How far south do you have to be? by scosol · · Score: 1

      It is in fact a standard- go look it up you lazy arse :P

      --
      I browse at +5 Flamebait- moderation for all or moderation for none.
    2. Re:How far south do you have to be? by Panaflex · · Score: 4, Informative

      Read here

      The FAI's rules state that a record attempt like this must start and finish at the same airfield and cross all meridians of the globe. What's more the course must not be less than the very precise figure of 36,787.559 kilometres (around 23,000 miles) which is equal in length to the Tropic of Cancer.

      They're going to try to catch the most wind they can.. so there will be some deviation in the flight plans I'm sure as they follow the currents.

      -Pan

      --
      I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
    3. Re:How far south do you have to be? by NoMaster · · Score: 1

      Like the Vendee "around the world" yacht race?

      Head south, sail as close as you dare around Antarctica without freezing up and tipping over, then head home...

      --
      What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
    4. Re:How far south do you have to be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The rules are set by the Federation Aeronautique Internationale. The flight must cross all meridians of the globe and be longer than 23,000 miles which is the length of the Tropic of Cancer.

    5. Re:How far south do you have to be? by Edward+Teach · · Score: 1

      Title 18 regulates it...what part of "shall not be infringed." do you not understand.

      --

      Setting his threshold to 5, Sparky eliminated most of the trolls on /.

  49. Yeah, I thought the same... ;-) by PaulBu · · Score: 1

    Saw the (slightly faded) pic of similarly-looking plane in one of our department more (way more) senior guy's office and today asked if this is the one which is going to fly. Nope, he said, THAT one was taken long time ago, and it was a non-solo flight, and on an internal combustion engine as well. This one is solo and with a jet engine.

    (And yes, he told me how he went to the Desert to see this thing take off and it was so loaded with fuel that its wings were almost touching the runway, it lost a little wing-end stabilizer during take-off and damaged another one, and still was able to fly around the globe and at the end had enough fuel to fly to the east coast! ;-) ).

    (then he went on to discussing different ways to take off heavy planes when you do not want to have positive lift on the runway, ours being one of the major airospace companies, after all, but we do electronics. I would share some insights if I'd still remember them...)

    Paul B.

    1. Re:Yeah, I thought the same... ;-) by Deadstick · · Score: 2, Informative
      [pedantry]Jet engines are internal combustion engines. The Rutan/Yeager flight was powered by two piston engines.

      The little thing lost off the wingtip was not a stabilizer, but a winglet. Its only function is to modify the airflow around the wingtip in a subtle way that decreases the drag slightly, and the impact of losing it was a decrease in gas mileage.[/pedantry]

      rj

    2. Re:Yeah, I thought the same... ;-) by ptbarnett · · Score: 2, Interesting
      at the end had enough fuel to fly to the east coast!

      No, he didn't. They were practically running on fumes when they landed:

      http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Explorers_ Record_Setters_and_Daredevils/rutan/EX32.htm

      Rutan and Yeager completed their journey when they touched down at Edwards Air Force Base at 8:06 a.m. on December 23, 1986. The entire 24,986-mile trip had taken 9 days, 3 minutes, and 44 seconds, or a little more than 216 hours. During their trip, they had averaged around 116 miles per hour (187 kilometers per hour), and when they landed, they only had a few gallons of fuel left.

    3. Re:Yeah, I thought the same... ;-) by corngrower · · Score: 1

      At the time they landed it was reported that they had enough fuel to fly most of the way across the U.S. A few gallons would probably have been all that they needed to do this. At that point the thing was mostly a glider.

    4. Re:Yeah, I thought the same... ;-) by ptbarnett · · Score: 4, Informative
      At the time they landed it was reported that they had enough fuel to fly most of the way across the U.S.

      At the time that they landed, they thought they had enough fuel to fly most of the way across the US. I was watching the live coverage, and I remember it. It wasn't until after they drained/dipped the tanks that they realized they were running so short on fuel.

      A few gallons would probably have been all that they needed to do this. At that point the thing was mostly a glider.

      The Voyager flew most of the time only on the Continental IOL-200 rear engine. It's an unusual engine, so fuel flow specs aren't easily found, but the Continental O-200 from which it was derived consumes 5.5-6 gallons/hour (or 33-36 lbs/hour) at cruise. The IOL-200 is more efficient, but not enough to make a substantial difference in endurance with only 6 of fuel. That's usually over the range of 50% to 75% power, which is what aviation engines cruise at. Outside that range, they are not very efficient.

      You can get some idea of Voyager's average fuel flow from:

      http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/ruta nvoy.htm

      They lifted off with 7,011 lbs of fuel. They landed with 48 lbs (8 gallons). Having flown 24,986 miles in just a bit over 216 hours, that's 3.6 miles per lb of fuel, or 32 lb/hour. Using those average numbers, they weren't going to get much further on 48 lbs of fuel.

      Of course as you point out, they had burned off most of their gross weight. But the reduced weight would only reduce the induced drag. It wouldn't have reduced the parasitic drag. So, the increased fuel efficiency would not be as large as the difference in the gross weight. There's no way they could have kept the engine running for 3000+ miles on 8 gallons of gas.

      And I can tell you from personal experience (I have a glider rating on my pilot certificate), even the highest performance glider won't cover any significant portion of the distance across the continental US in the absence of power or lift in the form of thermals or mountain waves. And the Voyager wasn't designed to fly any distance without power.

  50. Details? by NerdConspiracy · · Score: 0, Troll

    Not a lot of details there. What's so special about this plane that allows it to fly for 80 hours without refueling. What kind of engine etc

    Not that I care all that much. Another billionaire trying to get into record books. I had a good laugh every time Richard Branson's baloon crashed, and I'll have a good laugh here too

  51. Did he show a photo ID to the airport people? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or is this mandatory only for passengers?

    1. Re:Did he show a photo ID to the airport people? by deadweight · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is way OT, but Homeland Insecurity once would not allow a pilot to carry a screwdriver onto HIS OWN airplane he was flying solo! I guess they didn't want him hijacking himself.

    2. Re:Did he show a photo ID to the airport people? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      I know you're trolling, but until recently pilots were not required to carry photo IDs, but only to show their pilot certificate (which does not have a photo on it). The government had wanted to replace all pilot certificates with a new document which had a photo on it, but tey backed down and agreed that it would be sufficient to display a pilot certificate and a government issued photo ID such as a driver's license.
      it is not necessary for a private pilot to go through TSA in order for him to fly his own plane. However, he must display his pilot certificate and a government issued photo ID if requested to do so by an official of the FAA, local state or federal law enforcement, customs official, presumably TSA, and probably just about anybody else.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  52. Solo, Jet-powered. by Tavor · · Score: 0

    "to be the first solo non-stop flight around the world without refuelling." The keywords here, are SOLO, and what should have been included: jet-powered. Voyager, the last Round the World plane, had a pair of engines driving props. Now, why is jet-powered significant? Because jet technology has typically lagged behind in fuel economy.
    The Soviet Union, for their long range TU-95 bomber (Codenamed by NATO as the BEAR) used four turboprop engines each driving a pair of counterrotating props. The reason for this, while the West was starting to use Jet bombers, was that even the best jets the Soviet Union could produce had not acheived the fuel economy to give them the rage that was needed. With turboprops, however, the range exceed estimates, and a passenger TU-95 variant was used by Aeroflot on a Soviet Union-Cuba route in the 60's.
    Back to the present day... If Burt Rutan has designed a plane with the fuel capacity to feed a jet for a Round the World flight, then he is truly a genius. But one thing I noticed is that 295 MPH is slow for a jet aircraft. During WWII, the fastest Allied plane was about 450 MPH, mabye more in a dive. I'm curious to know if the reduction in speed is reaping a fuel econ. benifit. IANAAE (I am not an Aeronautical Engineer,) but I'd suppose this is like driving a car at 45 to save on gas, as opposed to 65. Any Aeronautical Engineers out there want to reply?

    --
    Windows has detected an undetectable error.
    1. Re:Solo, Jet-powered. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mentioned in an earlier response but the plane is designed specifically to take advantage of the jet stream. At lower speeds, a greater percentage of the flights energy is contributed by this tail wind.

  53. answers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The jet engine is actually just a regular off the shelf engine.

    I talked with the guys at K-state of Salina (the support team for it their, I have actually been withen 1 " of the thing) and they said the hard part is keeping the weight down while having it be strong enough to keep the wings from falling off.

    They didn't fill it up completly till it was right at the start of the runway, and even then, they weighed it to make sure they didn't overfill it.

  54. Redundancy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow. Really cool. So cool that I might read this "news item" twice. I hope they race with this guy to get around the world to see who first spots a dupe.

  55. I'll tell you how... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/01/02/mistaken.bomb ing/

    Drugs are Great.

  56. Fuel efficiency by leipzig3 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So this thing weighs 10 tons. 83% of that is fuel so 8300 kg. It has 15% extra fuel as reserve, so it will need an estimated 7000 kilograms. Fuel has a density of around .83 Kg/L so this is 8400 L of fuel. The circumference of the earth is 40,000 km leading to a fuel efficiency of 21 L/100 km. Or... in miles per gallon it would be 26000 miles/2200 gallons = 12 miles per gallon. Not bad at all for a 10 ton craft (initially) that flies. In fact, it beats the hummer and many SUV's.

    1. Re:Fuel efficiency by corngrower · · Score: 1

      The voyager held 7000 lb of fuel, IIRC. That's a little less than half of what this thing holds. If I remember correctly, partway through the voyager's flight, one of the engines was shut off (planned) to conserve fuel. This was done after the plane was light enough so that a single engine could handle the load.

    2. Re:Fuel efficiency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The space shuttle has a propellant mass fraction of about 82% and circles the earth many times each trip. Most of that mass is oxygen, which the plane will extract from the air. So for comparison, the plane effectively requires significantly more than its mass in fuel for the trip. Further the space shuttle orbits the earth in a great circle every time.

      This is actually exciting. At first look it would seem to indicate the feasability of space planes for long distnaces.

      http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/TRC/Rockets/pract ical_rocketry.html

  57. Re:Please hold your arms away from your body... by vranash · · Score: 1

    You hafta spray paint your national affiliation across the wings, fuselage, and tail of your plane first :)

    The current favorites are:
    A Dollar Sign.
    An apple with a bite taken out of it.
    A flying multicolored window whose color scheme vaguely reminds some of the prior logo before it went monochrome.
    A fat lazy penguin wearing a flightsuit.
    And a Bison.

  58. Insomnia by 9Nails · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have no idea how you can stay awake that long! I recall Burt Rutan and his wife tried this a few years ago and there was some heat between them, probably set on by the lack of sleep. Judgement is sacraficed under those conditions.

  59. Yawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Call me when it's attempted using a human-powered craft.

  60. Re:good editing! by poopdeville · · Score: 1

    OT: I like puppies, and I like acid!

    --
    After all, I am strangely colored.
  61. Yurii Gagarin did it in 1961 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He flew around the world without refueling. Lots of cosmonauts and astronauts did it after him.

  62. Re:good editing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    K-State Salina has a very good aeronautics school, and a large enough airstrip.

  63. Gagarin flew in upper atmosphere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At 200-300 Km height there is still some gas left (although very rarefied). Check out the generalized version of the barometric equation which takes into account the variation of the gravitational field with altitude.

    1. Re:Gagarin flew in upper atmosphere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But doesen't achieve lift from the gas. Hence it is not "flying", but dropping.

  64. Intentionally adding length to the flight by astro-g · · Score: 1

    The flight plan largely involves following the jetstream, which means they are not flying directly around the equator.
    In order to meet the FAI's definition of around the world, the flight must be at least as long as the tropic of capricorn.
    therefore, they are intentionally adding lots of distance over the Pacific, in the form of a huge, wide turn.

  65. that's what happens when you invent something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You get to patent it.

    Deal with it.

    And you say the French did all the innvoation in that time, hence the French names? But then you say Curtiss Aircraft of Buffalo, NY invented the aileron. Is Buffalo in France now? I think you made a basic error here of some sort.

  66. It's not a jet, it's a turbofan. by psydragn · · Score: 4, Informative

    The GlobalFlyer is actually powered by a turbofan, not a jet. These engines use a jet engine to spin a fan which produces the majority of the thrust. Air entering the cowling is divided between entering a the compressor intake and (the majority) bypasses the compressor and is blown out by the fan. A minority percentage of the thrust actually comes from the combustion gases. Turbofans are what move commercial airliners. In a true jet powered craft, all the thrust comes from combustion gases.

    1. Re:It's not a jet, it's a turbofan. by idontgno · · Score: 1
      While this is both factual and informative, isn't it a bit misleading? Can anyone name a modern airframe (last 15 years) which is powered by a pure turbojet? Every "jet plane" you see at the airport (or in the military aerodrome) is a turbofan, of various degress of bypass. So yes, it's both a turbofan and a "jet".

      Unless you can cite a specific modern counterexample?

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  67. What does 'around the wolrd' meen here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if just merideans then go north till you hit a huge ice cube do donut land and call it a day.

  68. Re:Global Pee on Poor People Founder by SnowZero · · Score: 2, Funny

    Err... Main language turn on?

  69. weather at takeoff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here are the METARs...
    KSLN 010053Z 34011KT 10SM CLR 01/M10 A3007 RMK AO2 SLP193 T00061100
    KSLN 282353Z 34019G25KT 10SM CLR 03/M12 A3004 RMK AO2 PK WND 35026/2305 SLP183 T00331117 10056 20033 53005
    http://weather.cod.edu/notes/metar.html
    ht tp://www.met.tamu.edu/class/METAR/quick-metar.ht ml

    Here was the TAF valid at takeoff...
    KSLN 282320Z 010024 34009KT P6SM SKC
    FM1200 VRB03KT P6SM SKC
    FM1800 17006KT P6SM FEW150=
    http://www.faa.gov/ats/mmvafss/METAR.htm

    I hope the landing weather is just as good.

  70. Mod Parent up, Informative! by Tavor · · Score: 0

    Mod Parent up, Informative!

    --
    Windows has detected an undetectable error.
  71. Impressive, but wait what Boeing has planned. by MtViewGuy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've heard that Boeing wants to demonstrate the extreme long range of the new 777-200 Long Range model by doing what could be the longest flight ever by a standard jet engine airliner.

    Remember, the 777-200LR can fly over 9,000 nautical miles with a standard passenger load and a slightly-reduced cargo load with extra fuel tanks; imagine stripping down a 777-200LR so you can can get the weight equivalent of the cabin fittings and cargo load in extra fuel load. Pre-cool all that Jet A fuel and this modified 777-200LR could probably travel over 13,000 nautical miles easily, though a round-the-world non-stop flight is probably out of the question.

    1. Re:Impressive, but wait what Boeing has planned. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      quote: travel over 13,000 nautical miles easily, though a round-the-world non-stop flight is
      probably out of the question.

      Probably? Emilia Earhart probably thought along those lines.

    2. Re:Impressive, but wait what Boeing has planned. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      back in '76 i flew as a paying passenger, pan am, los angeles ca. to sydney nsw, non-stop. that's 6500nm great circle and at 50k feet a little further. you know what, it was miserable spending that much time in the air. pan am had pretty spacious seating, free drinks, and one was allowed to smoke at the time. this was a 747-sp

      i can't imagine 9000nm if the seating on the 777-200lr is as cramped as most modern passenger planes. passengers will be killing each other!

      the dc-8 super 70 has had an 6200nm range since the early 70's! it's a very pretty aircraft as well and many examples have logged well over 100,000 hours.

    3. Re:Impressive, but wait what Boeing has planned. by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

      i can't imagine 9000nm if the seating on the 777-200lr is as cramped as most modern passenger planes. passengers will be killing each other!

      I think most airlines agree, hence the reason why Singapore Airlines' Airbus A340-500 planes which fly the current longest routes in the world (between Los Angeles and Singapore and New York (Newark) and Singapore) only seat 181 passengers, which means very roomy seating in both Business and Economy classes.

  72. The Salina Municipal Airport link was meaningful.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    ..not

  73. altitude/speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Jet engines act as their own superchargers. So they can fly at very high altitudes. Piston engines need separate superchargers for this.

    And, since jets can fly higher (and produce much more thrust) they can fly faster.

    Well, this flight doesn't need to be particularly fast. So there is plenty of reason to question why the answer to the questions for this flight are different from those for the airline industry.

    If you are going to use a jet, you'd want a ultra high bypass engine. This means that it both passes air through the regular jet combustion part and also pushes more air out hte back around the combustion area. That means it really acts like a turboprop.

    Honestly, that engine looks too small to be a true UHP engine. But I guess it does well enough for this very light vehicle.

    I know Rutan does very high tech stuff, but he sourced the engines for White Knight from surplus that was cheaply available. This plane probably also uses an engine that was "close enough" instead of purpose designed.

    While I'm at it, I want to mention how silly this whole thing is. An autopilot could fly that plane around the entire world while Fossett sleeps. Technology has made this record pointless.

    I say after Fossett flies around the world in this thing he gets out, they gas it up and send it off without a pilot to do another lap.

    1. Re:altitude/speed by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      ... he sourced the engines for White Knight from surplus that was cheaply available. This plane probably also uses an engine that was "close enough" instead of purpose designed.
      It would be foolish to spend that much money to purpose design an engine for this vehicle. Unlike car manufacturers, airplane manufacturers do not (normally) design an engine to drive their plane. Most choose a supplier with an engine that meets the performance criteria and go with that. In some cases, you get to choose which brand of engine you want. The 747 is available with Pratt and Whitney, General Electric, or Rolls Royce engines, as is the 777. In engines of that size, the engine manufacturer was probably approached to develope an engine specifice to the model, but in smaller business jets, and the new very light jets, many models of planes are using engines from one of only several manfucaturers of engines.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  74. live video streams by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone know if the "Mixed Feed" video stream will be available at any point in the flight prior to the landing? I watched the takeoff - faily uneventful due to the waning light - but I'd really like to peek in the cockpit during the flight. That feed seems to have been down since just after takeoff. The Mission Control Feed and Press Briefing Room are not all that terribly interesting.

    1. Re:live video streams by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, looking again, it looks like http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/projects/globalflyer/l ive.jpg is getting updated anyways. I can't open the RM "mixed feed".

    2. Re:live video streams by dtmos · · Score: 1

      ...except now it says, "loss of data." I hope that's just due to a communications failure (perhaps LOS while over the atlantic?).

    3. Re:live video streams by omahajim · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have been capturing the JPG stream of the cockpit image (using Beausoft WebcamWatcher). I'm up to over 5400 images so far, they are updating the JPG every six seconds, over a satellite phone (IIRC) to their website. Will be interesting to make a MOV out of the complete batch of JPGs from the cabin. Each JPG is about 11KB, 352x240 pixels. I also do see the "loss of data" every once in a while but usually only for a few minutes at a time.

    4. Re:live video streams by omahajim · · Score: 1
      Looks like they might be blocking WebcamWatcher based on the HTTP headers. They have either changed the URL or set up distributed DNS.

      Now when you try to load the cockpit image using Firefox or IE, you get back the following URL and image

      http://www09.ksc.nasa.gov/projects/globalflyer/liv e.jpg

      It used to be just plain www. But when I load (and reload, and reload) that URL above in a browser, it refreshes fine (current image). Using WebcamWatcher, with the exact same URL, it won't load the image at all. I have confirmed that other images from other sites load fine in that software, so it's not the network or the webcam software.

    5. Re:live video streams by omahajim · · Score: 1

      Sheesh, neverming, working again with WCW. Anyways hope the info on the URL above is still helpful.

      Sorry.

  75. the question is... by johansalk · · Score: 1

    the one that puzzles me more than how he sleeps or eats, is how does he shit?

    1. Re:the question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A good, thorough enema before the flight, so not only he doesn't have to, but also the total plane+pilot weight gets reduced :P

  76. i dont understand by wisdom_brewing · · Score: 1

    why instead of someone designing a plane specifically for it someone didnt take something like the guppy or another plane with an enormous payload, add extra fuel tanks instead of passengers/cargo. could someone care to explain?

    1. Re:i dont understand by Fritzed · · Score: 2, Informative

      If it were that easy, somebody would have done it a long time ago. The problem is that adding fuel tanks adds weight, a lot of weight. Most planes a designed to carry a certain weight of cargo, including people and packages, but just adding that much weight in fuel does not get you that much more.

      By using a smaller plane they can use much less fuel at a time, and they worked very hard to get the exact mixture of fuel-weight ratio. Simply adding another tank would throw off the whole equation. You have a lot more weight and while the amount of weight may go down over time as the fuel is used, you have to have a bigger engine simply to take off. Even when the extra fuel is depleted you still have the extra weight of the fuel tanks.

      As I said in my other post, Popular Science wrote a great article on it.

      -> Fritz

      --
      Spooooon!!!!!
    2. Re:i dont understand by wisdom_brewing · · Score: 1

      just looked up the information on typical boeings. didnt realise the long haul 747s could carry over 200 tonnes of fuel. i guess 50 tonnes of cargo and passengers being replaced with fuel would make an insignificant increase in range when considered on a global scale. my bad

  77. "to be the first solo non-stop flight around the" by gbitten · · Score: 1

    Yuri Gagarin was the first in April 12, 1961.

  78. Slashdotting with style - JSP errors by subStance · · Score: 2, Funny
    This has to be the most stylish way to get slashdotted I've ever seen. Actually making it fake like you wrote a page that ddin't work in the first place when under load .... cool !! (ducks)
    org.apache.jasper.JasperException: Unable to compile class for JSP
    An error occurred at line: 531 in the jsp file: /MissionControl/Tracking/index.jsp
    Generated servlet error: [javac] Compiling 1 source file /usr/local/jakarta-tomcat-5.0.19/work/Catalina/loc alhost/_/org/apache/jsp/MissionControl/Tracking/in dex_jsp.java:607: ')' expected
    An error occurred at line: 531 in the jsp file: /MissionControl/Tracking/index.jsp
    Generated servlet error: out.println( com.conchango.vagf.util.TridionHelper.getComponent Link(application, "tcm:0-206-1").getLinkAsString("tcm:206-4611-64", "tcm:206-4720","tcm:206-3559-32", "", ""Friendship" flies the Atlantic", true) );
    ...

    org.apache.jasper.compiler.DefaultErrorHand ler.javacError(DefaultErrorHandler.java:127)
    org. apache.jasper.compiler.ErrorDispatcher.javacError( ErrorDispatcher.java:351)
    org.apache.jasper.compi ler.Compiler.generateClass(Compiler.java:415)
    org .apache.jasper.compiler.Compiler.compile(Compiler. java:458)
    org.apache.jasper.compiler.Compiler.com pile(Compiler.java:439)
    org.apache.jasper.JspComp ilationContext.compile(JspCompilationContext.java: 553)
    org.apache.jasper.servlet.JspServletWrapper. service(JspServletWrapper.java:291)
    org.apache.ja sper.servlet.JspServlet.serviceJspFile(JspServlet. java:301)
    org.apache.jasper.servlet.JspServlet.se rvice(JspServlet.java:248)
    javax.servlet.http.Htt pServlet.service(HttpServlet.java:856)
    com.concha ngo.vagf.util.DarksiteFilter.doFilter(DarksiteFilt er.java:71)
    --
    Servlet v2.4 container in a single 161KB jar file ? Try Winstone
  79. Can you say MetaAmphetamines boys & girls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



    Can you say MetaAmphetamines boys & girls? I thought so.

    On another track, Around the world in 80 days. Remember that? So, 100 years later and we only get 24 times faster? When you get a transporter story, let me know (call@me.com)

  80. Central... right... by ownermachina · · Score: 1

    The Salina Airport was chosen for its central location

    ... Right.. so in a semi-sphere like our planet... how was this a CENTRAL location? ;-)

    1. Re:Central... right... by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      Not the center of the earth -- the center of the U.S. According to the BBC and other news sources, the Cental U.S. was chosen as the start/finish line so that if he came up a few thousand miles short on fuel, he could land at a Western U.S. airport rather than ditch in the Pacific (if he had launched from the West Coast). Salina (the Salzburg of Kansas) was chosen for its nice long runway for takeoff.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    2. Re:Central... right... by ownermachina · · Score: 1

      Well... it feels like the US is the center of the world quite too often, in little but annoying ways.

  81. John Glenn was the first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Glenn

    1. Re:John Glenn was the first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me guess - you're American?

      Rewriting history and Hollywood 'intepretations' (such as U571) don't do you any favours. At best you look ill informed, at worst an unattractive mixture of arrogance and ignorance.

  82. Live from Mission Control by 5Ball · · Score: 1

    For live coverage of the mission in progress, see http://www.saljournal.com/globalflyer/.

  83. How much will be flown by auto pilot? by jzarling · · Score: 1

    I wonder how much will be flown by auto pilot? Especially during the last legs of the trip.

    --
    It is better to be the hammer than the anvil.
    1. Re:How much will be flown by auto pilot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All of it!!

  84. The planned and actual route differ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I do not understand, why they are flying completely different route than they planned? They should have been flying over Europe, but they go over Africa instead. What's up?

    1. Re:The planned and actual route differ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GlobalFlyer's route was originally to pass over Ireland, Wales, England, France and Italy. Instead, it headed south further to the west, so that the first land it will cross after after leaving the North American mainland will be Africa. Jon Karkow, a test pilot with Scaled Composites, the company that designed and built GlobalFlyer, says the revised route reflected the route of the jet stream Monday. In order to qualify for a world record, the flight team must file a set of waypoints with Federation Aeronautique Internationale, the organization that sanctions international aviation records. Fossett's team waited until the last possible minute to file its plan with FAI, in order to get the most benefit from the jet stream possible, Karkow said.

  85. took almost three centuries by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Its taken almost three centuries since the demonstration of flight [ by balloon ] for a person to solo the globe. Now powered flight may be soloed. Its not a trivial record.

  86. What about... by rdavidson3 · · Score: 0

    the spaceshuttle? Doesn't it do the roundtrip thing without refueling also. I am sure that one person flies it at a time too (not including the nav or anyone). And it does this in much less than 80 hours. Or is the spaceshuttle not in the same category?

    1. Re:What about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Definitely not the same. Besides the fact that it drops a huge part of it's takeoff mass, it shoots into space more than flies into space.

      People who were shot out of a cannon didn't beat the Wright Brothers to the punch either ;-)

  87. Re:that's what happens when you invent something.. by tompaulco · · Score: 1

    I think what you are missing is the huge number of things that all had to come together at one time in order to make the first airplane. The engines of the time had to make a huge step forward in terms of their power output to weight ratio. The Bernoulli principle had to be tested and proven on a large scale wing. The traditional propeller shape used in power boats had to be redesigned to work in the unfamiliar arena of air.
    Work was going on in several places in the U.S., as well as in France. Curtiss Aircraft actually had a model ready to go before the Wright brothers, but when they launched it, it didn't fly.
    The French claim they had the first flight because the Wright brothers only got the plane to go in a straight line. The French chose to define flight as the ability to take off, turn the aircraft in a 1km circle and land in the same spot, which they did in 1908.
    Other notable French Aeronautical achievements:
    1905 Captain F. Ferber of the French army introduces a stable, powered biplane.
    1907 A man-carrying helicopter, built by Frenchman Paul Cornu, rises (November)
    1909 Louis Blériot makes the first airplane flight across the English Channel (July)
    1910 First successful seaplane flown by Henri Fabre
    1912 First flight of an all-metal airplane, the French Tubavion
    1912 First airplane flight at more than 160 km/hr (100 mph), by the French pilot J. Védrines (February)

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  88. Re:Please hold your arms away from your body... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if you fly your own plane (privately under part 91 rules) you can take just about anything you want. including guns.

    IIRC, you are required to carry firearms if you fly over certain parts of Canada.

  89. There are different levels of design by syousef · · Score: 1

    Take something more tangible like a car design. If you lumped destailed descriptions of all the blueprints for the individual components in a nicely bound document without any overall design schematic how hard would it be for anyone to get an overall picture of how the car would look and feel?

    What if you asked your average customer to work out if they'd like the car based on these ideas?

    This is very much like what you're asking business analysts and users to do if you provide a source code listing and nothing more. If I was in charge of a project, and that's what you handed me after I gave you business requirements, I'd seek to have you removed from the project.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  90. First solo?? by gfreeman · · Score: 1

    "to be the first solo non-stop flight around the world without refuelling."

    Wasn't that Yuri Gagarin?

    --
    Ceci n'est pas un sig.