Slashdot Mirror


GlobalFlyer Completes Record-Breaking Flight

ikewillis writes "Steve Fossett has successfully landed the GlobalFlyer in Kansas, completing the record-breaking flight and becoming the first person to successfully circle the earth in a nonstop solo flight. The journey of 37,000 kilometres has taken 67 hours, many of them fraught with anxiety over whether the custom-made GlobalFlyer aircraft had enough fuel for the trip. Fossett managed to touch down at 2:48 p.m. EST, to the delight of mission control staff, a small crowd and a marching band that had gathered at the airstrip to welcome him."

20 of 496 comments (clear)

  1. Correction by Zebbie · · Score: 5, Informative
    The post says that the flight took "more than 80 hours," but the first link states the flight took 67 hours.

    Also FYI (37,000 km) / (67 hours) = 343.145285 mph ... pretty darn fast considering they were expecting an average of 285mph.

    1. Re:Correction by ari_j · · Score: 2, Informative

      Regarding the speed, are you sure they expected 285mph or was it 285 knots? Also, was that expected airspeed or ground speed? FWIW, 285kts = 328mph, and even if they expected 285mph, ground speed is higher than indicated airspeed at altitude (although I don't know how high they were flying, I remember reading it was fairly high up).

      So what all did he get to fly over on this trip?

  2. Re:Salina, Kansas by Jarnis · · Score: 3, Informative

    VERY long runway.

    And that's where he started (because of the very long runway that was needed for takeoff).

    And by the record rules, you have to start and land from the same airfield.

  3. Re:Salina, Kansas by redmerlin · · Score: 1, Informative

    They choose Salina becuase they needed a very long runway for takeoff; it's a 12,000 foot runway that they used to train B52 bomber's during WW2.

  4. Congratulations most deservedly goes to... by PhantomHarlock · · Score: 4, Informative

    Jon Karkow, my neighbor and project manager/designer and chief test pilot of this little airplane. It was his baby from start to finish. (in addition to all the other congratulations all around!)

    --M

  5. Re:Mod me down but this is no big accomplishment by PedanticSpellingTrol · · Score: 3, Informative

    Publicity for the same rich guy, in fact. Branson put up all the cash for this little excursion.

  6. Re:67 hours no? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Informative

    Remember that at the last minute, they changed the flightplan to take a MASSIVE shortcut by cutting out the northern atlantic route and instead flying directly to Africa and across that way (due to preferential winds apparently) That would have saved a lot of fuel, which probably helped a lot.

  7. Re:Around the Earth .. Really??? by Big_Al_B · · Score: 2, Informative

    From the official website for the project:

    For the Virgin Atlantic GlobalFlyer and its pilot Steve Fossett to set a world record for the first solo, non-stop, non-refuelled circumnavigation of the world they will have to follow a strict set of rules laid down by the governing body of aviation record attempts, the Federation Aeronautique Internationale.

  8. Re:sorry, around the world? since when?! by groomed · · Score: 4, Informative
    Actually, from the global flyer website:
    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. To allow the Virgin Atlantic GlobalFlyer to catch the vital jet stream winds, the FAI rules don't oblige that record attempts follow the imaginary line of the Tropic itself but simply that the distance flown exceeds it.
    So it seems more or less legit.
  9. Smithsonian by MDMurphy · · Score: 2, Informative

    The Smithsonian already has Voyager, if they end up with SS1 and GlobalFlyer then Burt Rutan is on his way to his own room at the place.

  10. Re:67 hours no? by sacherjj · · Score: 2, Informative

    His cruise altitude was 45,000 feet. Roughly 8 miles. With an efficient aircraft (which this is) you should have a glide ratio better than 30. So he should be able to glide 30 * 8 or 240 miles. The 200 miles figure seems much more likely than the 50 miles.

  11. Re:67 hours no? by Enigma_Man · · Score: 3, Informative

    The chute _was_ necessary to land properly, the info on the Scaled Composites site specifically mentions that. The plane had such a good glide-to-drop-ratio (I forget the actual term for that) that it made it extremely difficult to land. You couldn't get the plane to drop fast enough to land in any sort of reasonable runway, it would just skim over the ground.

    -Jesse

    --
    Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
  12. Re:Distance Record Broken by Unkle · · Score: 2, Informative
    The SR-71 couldn't even take off with a full load of fuel--not because of weight (AFAIK), but because the skin, which was also the gas tank, was designed to expand at Mach 3 speeds, and thus actually leaked fuel at normal temperature on the ground. The first thing the Blackbird did after taking off was fuel up.

    But the previous record being in 1962 suprises me as well. But I'm not sure if it's a matter of it being so long ago or the fact that a B-52 can travel so far.

    --
    Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain.
  13. Re:67 hours no? by mmkkbb · · Score: 2, Informative

    the full load of fuel probably weighed considerably more than the empty aircraft

    The fully-loaded fuel tank was around 85% the plane's weight, IIRC, so you are correct.

    --
    -mkb
  14. Re:67 hours no? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 5, Informative

    The actual requirements are '36,787.559-kilometer minimum distance required for the arbiter of world aviation records, the Paris-based Federation Aeronautique Internationale, to recognize the feat.' There you go.

  15. Record SETTING Flight is more appropriate by stoyan · · Score: 2, Informative

    Since he did not break any record.

    1. Re:Record SETTING Flight is more appropriate by Big_Al_B · · Score: 2, Informative

      Except the "longest nonstop flight without refueling" record. It is an established mark that Fossett broke. And it is different than the "shortest time for a single pilot to circumvent the globe in a nonstop/nonrefueled flight" record that Fossett _set_ today.

  16. Re:Mod me down but this is no big accomplishment by mamba-mamba · · Score: 2, Informative

    You don't seem to know what you are talking about. There are two men: Branson and Fosset.

    AFAICT, all Branson did is write a check and provide moral support.

    The pilot was Fosset. Apparently they are friends. Fosset is not that rich. The article refers to him as a millionaire. Branson, on the other hand, is referred to as a billionaire. So I think it is incorrect to say that Fosset can do whatever he chooses. It might be more accurate to say that he has enough determination to accomplish his objectives.

    Other than that, I guess I agree with you. I like reading about Branson and Fosset and their ilk. I don't see why they shouldn't keep doing the stuff they do. Rutan wouldn't have nearly as much fun without guys like Branson and Fosset and Paul Allen to help pay for everything. And I like reading about Rutan's accomplishments, too.

    MM

    --
    By including this sig, the copyright holders of this work or collection unreservedly place it in the public domain.
  17. Re:67 hours no? by espek · · Score: 2, Informative

    It would be near impossible to do this in a sailplane, mostly because you can only fly sailplanes during the day. At night there are no thermals to keep you afloat. that's why you need some sort of self-contained power source (batteries, or fuel). And to the gentleman from a prior post that does not seem to be impressed by this _amazing_ feat, I pity you.

  18. Re:67 hours no? by georgewilliamherbert · · Score: 2, Informative
    I doubt that the global flyer has a 20:1 glide ratio.
    From: The Global Flyer aircraft description at virginatlanticglobalflyer.com we have the following statistics:
    Some facts and figures:
    - Wing Span: 114ft
    - Wing Area: 400ft squared
    - Length: 44.1ft
    - Height: 13.3ft
    - Gross Weight: 22,000 lbs
    - Empty Weight: 3,350 lbs
    That's an aspect ratio of 32.5, wing loading when the fuel runs out (assuming 200 lb pilot+gear) of only 8.875 lbs/ft^2. Induced drag will be trivial and you're only fighting wetted area drag.

    The best glider in the world? No. A darn good one? Oh, yeah.