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."
That should read 80 days, Passepartout!!
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
Live Tracking
Anyone know how you can stay up for 80hours straight and still land a plane? I'm not talking about Viagra.
I don't know if that's important, but it is the first solo non-refueling JET flight.
Fellowship 9/11
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.
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
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.
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"
Mr. Rutan was accompanied by Ms. Yeager.
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).
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
B) How is he storing all that fuel?
Both answers can be found in the plane description at http://www.virginatlanticglobalflyer.com/Aircraft
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.
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.
You mean you hope he doesn't fly over your house ;-)
Don't blame me -- I voted for Roslin.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows