Slashdot Mirror


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.".

30 of 317 comments (clear)

  1. Rigorous Testing? by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Interesting
    "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.".

    An amount of fuel was predicted to be lost due to evaporation, but as the aircraft's tanks had not been tested at full capacity , Mission Control were unable to predict the exact amount that would be lost.

    Uh .. I don't think I'm quite as eager as I once was to go up on Virgin Galactic* The Global Flyer would more appropriately be named The Bleeding Edge.

    *The joint venture between Rutan's Scaled Composites and Branson's Virgin.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. 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 :-(

    2. 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
  2. My guess... by PopeAlien · · Score: 5, Funny

    Aliens.

    Aliens with a thirst for fuel.

  3. Sky captain by notthe9 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Why not just land on a flying fortess and never really stop?

  4. Used the wrong units. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    His plane was supposed to be loaded with 12400 hogsheads to make the 18,000 hectaire journey. Instead they used gallons.

  5. 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.

    1. Re:No pre-flight test? by plover · · Score: 4, Informative

      One other thing I failed to mention in the previous post: the fully laden wings droop substantially, and I believe they almost drag on the ground when full. It would be extremely difficult (if not impossible) to land a craft in a condition like that without accidentally dragging a wingtip.

      --
      John
    2. Re:No pre-flight test? by omahajim · · Score: 4, Informative
      the fully laden wings droop substantially, and I believe they almost drag on the ground when full.

      From my observation of the live takeoff video feed from the airport, I didn't see any drooping at all. At the end of RWY 35 where it sat a good portion of the day, the wings looked perfectly level in all shots I saw on the feed - including the moments immediately prior to takeoff. Once the takeoff roll was underway and especially once airborne, the wings appeared to have a slight bend upwards at the tips.

  6. counting on fingers by tedtimmons · · Score: 5, Informative

    That is about 380 gallons of gas, if you calculate avgas at 6.84 lbs/gallon.

    -ted

    1. Re:counting on fingers by blixel · · Score: 5, Funny

      Why the hell is water heavier than fuel?

      Much like yourself, water is more dense.

  7. I already saw it on CNN by NeuroManson · · Score: 5, Informative

    It was due to a defective fuel guage showing a full tankload, despite it being 2600 lbs short.

    --
    Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
  8. 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 ackthpt · · Score: 5, Interesting
      The Global Flyer has to be the fastest machine, and therefore utilise more unproven technology than, say, the Galactic.

      Sure, sure, but they didn't test at full capacity? Cripes, that has nothing to do with bleeding edge engineering, that's just being in too damn big a hurry. I think quite a lot of /. readers are familiar with the phrase, "You can have it done right, or have it done right now, take your pick."

      That they went for "right now" suggests there's been corners cut and we're on the verge of (what May 15th?) NASA restarting the shuttle program after much soul searching. What a fine example this [globale flyer] team has set.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. 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:Bit of a difference... by sacherjj · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually they are testing it at full capacity. Right now. If it works, they finish the flight. If it doesn't, they modify the system. If you remember, the voyager only loaded full fuel on it attempt flight. And they pretty much ground off both winglets. Yet, the craft was still ok to fly around the world and set the record. Sometimes you have to take some exucated risks to set records.

    4. Re:Bit of a difference... by einhverfr · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I thought about this two and I decided that there was a simple reason---

      Taking off fully loaded was supposed to be the most dangerous part of the flight. How easy would it be to land with that much fuel? Is that something that should be tested? Or saved for an emergency?

      I doubt that the airplane was designed to easily land when fully loaded without emergency measures in place

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    5. Re:Bit of a difference... by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 5, Funny

      "exucated risks"

      Somewhere between calculated, educated and lethal execution?

  9. I think they are pushing it... by brienc · · Score: 5, Informative

    The article mentioned they will have to decide before departing Japaneese airspace, but you can see from the current posit, they are several uhnder miles off the coast.

  10. The Pilot's Creed by Spencerian · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Let my takeoff-to-safe landings ratio always remain at 1:1."

    --
    Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
  11. WE know where the gas went! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Damn Jawas!

  12. Re:Its ok., by mopslik · · Score: 5, Funny

    We men all know cars still have half a tank even when on empty.

    In my car, there is no "empty". "E" stands for "enough".

    "See, honey? There's enough gas left in the tank..."

  13. 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.
  14. they should have used the low tech fuel gage by PW2 · · Score: 5, Informative

    When learning to fly a Cessna 150, my instructor always made me not trust the fuel gage since what it reports can safely be confirmed another way -- I'd have to look in the tanks and dip a stick in the fuel to be sure there was enough. When flying, it's a different story as you must trust your instruments.

  15. Perhaps it's better to build up to the big journey by colpitts · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... start at the pole and roll it around the world in around 30 seconds. Then you could move out from there!

  16. Re:oblig red dwarf by rob_squared · · Score: 5, Funny

    Lister: Oh god, aliens? Your explanation for anything slightly peculiar is aliens, isn't it? You lose your keys, it's aliens. A picture falls off the wall, it's aliens. That time we used up a whole bog roll in a day, you thought that was aliens as well. Rimmer: Well we didn't use it all, Lister. Who did? Lister: Rimmer, aliens used our bog roll? Rimmer: Just 'cause they're aliens doesn't mean to say they don't have to visit the little boys' room. Only they probably do something weird and alienesque, like it comes out of the top of their heads or something. Lister: Well I wouldn't like to be stuck behind one in a cinema.

    --
    I don't get it.
  17. Queen Anne (US) or Imperial? by r00t · · Score: 4, Funny

    Gallons in the UK are about 20% bigger.
    I guess the King wanted bigger jugs.

  18. Branson's Fancy Watch by SiliconEntity · · Score: 4, Funny

    The Virgin web site has an interesting story about Branson giving Fossett a fancy watch to aid him on the flight,
    Watch to the rescue: "When speaking at a press conference the day before take-off of the emergency systems in place in the Virgin Atlantic GlobalFlyer if something were to go drastically wrong, Sir Richard Branson promptly took off his watch and gave it to his great friend Steve Fossett." But here's the rest of the story.

    According to people who were there, Richard Branson walks into the press conference holding two huge and obviously heavy suitcases when the topic came up about issues regarding the timing of the flight.

    Branson sighs, puts down the suitcases and glances at his wrist. "It's now a quarter to six," he says, and goes on to explain the planned timing for the next day's flight.

    "Hey, that's a pretty fancy watch!" exclaims Steve Fossett, the pilot.

    Branson brightens a little. "Yeah, it's not bad. Check this out" - and he shows him a time zone display not just for every time zone in the world, but for the 86 largest metropoli. He hits a few buttons and from somewhere on the watch a voice says "The time is eleven minutes to six" in a posh British accent. A few more buttons and the same voice says something in Japanese. Branson continues, "I've put in regional accents for each city". The display is unbelievably high quality and the voice is simply astounding.

    Fossett is struck dumb with admiration.

    "That's not all," says Branson. He pushes a few more buttons and a tiny but very hi-resolution map of central London appears on the display. "The flashing dot shows our location by satellite positioning," explains Branson. "View recede ten," Branson says, and the display changes to show the whole of Greater London.

    "I need this watch!" says Fossett.

    "Oh, no, it's not ready for sale yet; this is a prototype and the inventor is still working out the bugs," says Branson. "But look at this," and he proceeds to demonstrate that the watch is also a very creditable little FM radio receiver with a digital tuner, a sonar device that can measure distances up to 125 meters, a pager with thermal paper printout and most impressive of all, the capacity for voice recordings of up to 300 standard-size books," though I only have 32 of my favourites in there so far" says Sir Richard.

    "I've got to have this watch!" says Fossett. "It's just what I need for my flight!"

    "No, you don't understand; it's not ready."

    "I'll give you whatever you want for it! I'll give up my share of the royalties for the promotional tour after the flight!"

    Branson abruptly makes his decision. "OK," he says and peels off the watch, handing it to Fossett, who starts happily away, heading to the plane.

    "Hey, wait a minute," Sir Richard calls after Fossett, who turns around warily. Branson points to the two suitcases he'd been trying to lug into the press conference. "Don't forget your batteries."

  19. Cockpit camera by omahajim · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Live cockpit camera now at http://163.205.10.109/projects/globalflyer/live.jp g

    Previously updated about every six seconds, now I am only getting refreshes every 45-60 seconds.

  20. you are right by willCode4Beer.com · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, due to a design to keep the structural mass low and due to the mass of the fuel, it can't land safely with a full (or even half) load of fuel.
    The plane just isn't strong enough. Making the plane stronger would make it heavier, and a heavier plane would require more fuel. Its a compromise that had to be made.
    On a side note, they actually wanted to use a different turbine that was more fuel efficient but, were unable to locate one. So since the turbine they are using consumes more fuel, more compromises had to be made in the design.

    With a flight like this, you have to get rid of every last once of weight possible.

    --
    ----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern