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.".

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

    Aliens.

    Aliens with a thirst for fuel.

    --
    air and light and time and space
  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. 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.

  6. 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!
  7. 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.

  8. 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..."

  9. 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
  10. 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.
  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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
  14. 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.
  15. Re:Bit of a difference... by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 5, Funny

    "exucated risks"

    Somewhere between calculated, educated and lethal execution?

  16. 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