Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Fuel Loss May Cut Short GlobalFlyer's Journey

Posted by timothy on from the knock-on-wood dept.

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.".

6 of 317 comments (clear)

  1. No pre-flight test? by debianlinux · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  2. Bit of a difference... by lxt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...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.

    1. Re:Bit of a difference... by worst_name_ever · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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!

      --

      In Soviet Rush, today's Tom Sawyer gets high on you.
  3. Re:Rigorous Testing? by gr8_phk · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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 :-(

  4. Re:It's a Trick! by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
  5. Re:Rigorous Testing? by Rolan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    - AMW