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 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.
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
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.
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.
Actually, not only has a solo circumglobal flight been done before, Fossett was the one who did it, albeit in a balloon.
p
In Korea, long hair is for old people!
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.
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 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.