Fuel Loss May Cut Short GlobalFlyer's Journey

chris mazuc writes "Apparently the Virgin Atlantic GlobalFlyer has lost 2,600 lbs of fuel and might be forced to abort the attempt." According to the article, "Jon Karkow from Scaled Composites was unable to say whether it was due to leakage or evaporation. "We really don't know what it is... It's more than likely a system issue, such as a fuel venting line. It's been very puzzling for us, and we saw it quite early on.".

Comments

No pre-flight test?

[debianlinux]

They saw this early on. This indicates a problem that could have been found with a couple short test flights. Surely they had test flights, I mean, I wouldn't climb aboard a flying gas tank unless the thing had undergone some degree of flight testing prior to being loaded down for the long haul.

Bit of a difference...

[lxt]

...there's a difference between the Global Flyer and the Galactic, in that the Global Flyer is a non commercial interest. The galactic carries paying passengers - I doubt the Global Flyer will ever do such a thing, given its capacity.

Further more, the global flyer has been designed for a speed record attempt, and so must be at the bleeding edge to beat what's gone before. Sure, the Galactic would also be a record breaking craft, but it isn't going to be chasing speed records. The Global Flyer has to be the fastest machine, and therefore utilise more unproven technology than, say, the Galactic.

Re:Bit of a difference...

[worst_name_ever]

The Global Flyer has to be the fastest machine

No, it just has to be faster than the last aircraft to circle the globe nonstop and unrefuelled with only a single pilot!

Re:Rigorous Testing?

[gr8_phk]

I suspect they never tested at full capacity because it might not be real safe to land with that much fuel. At 85 percent fuel by weight it'd be dangerous to land, and the handling probably isn't really great fully loaded. The only way to test with full load then would be to fly for 3 days. What's wrong with dumping the excess fuel before landing? I dunno. The web site also has a story about some problems weighing it before takeoff - not that they connect the two.

Has he left Japan yet?

I was pleased to read that Williams International (who made the engine) is right here in Michigan, not too far for me to work - unfortunately they had no postings for software people :-(

Re:It's a Trick!

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

Why? It wasn't tax payer money. If some rich guy wants to blow his wad on something stupid like this, don't kick his ass, laugh when it fails.

Re:Rigorous Testing?

[Rolan]

What's wrong with dumping the excess fuel before landing? I dunno.

Looked at jet fuel prices lately? I wouldn't want to dump a gallon of the stuff, much less a full load.

Re:The Pilot's Creed

[gl4ss]

well.. scaled composites does sometimes two safe landings per one takeoff ;)

Re:Rigorous Testing?

[idontgno]

I think they could have engineered detachable fuel tanks

Detachable fuel tanks detach...while they're still full, and you need the fuel.

Adding complex subsystems to an already complex system increases complexity and potential failure points.

A better answer is to ground test fuel systems at all limits, and then accept the risks once airborne.

Re:Rigorous Testing?

[mrchaotica]

It's not as if burning it is any cheaper!

Re:Rigorous Testing?

[Dunbal]

My dog visits this website (looks over my shoulder in me home office) and I do not wish he be exposed to such profanity. In the future please rememember this is a family oriented website (some stories have been posted about Disney).

You're concerned about profanity affecting a creature that can lick its own testicles for pleasure in company?