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."

Comments

Looks to me

[ICECommander]

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

Re:Looks to me

[Anonymous Coward]

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

First Solo flight

[Marscity9]

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).

Re:Speed?

[Jozer99]

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.

Impressive, but wait what Boeing has planned.

[MtViewGuy]

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.

Re:What kind of jet?

[Alioth]

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).