Trivia: believe it or not, the reason you dip the tanks is that good ol' FAA specs for fuel gauges on GA (general aviation) aircraft only require that they read accurately *when empty*. Other than telling you when you're empty, they're useless. I'd be surprised if Global Flyer doesn't have better guages than that, as well as very accurate fuel consumption guages. Reading the news on their site, it's the difference between the two that's "missing".
The statement that the tanks have never been tested full needs to be taken with a big grain of salt, as I'm sure that a competent outfit like Scaled Composites did everything they could short of an actual flight test. Hell, I'd feel safer on a first ride in one of their "experimental" aircraft than on most scheduled carriers.
Flight testing wouldn't be safe, as other posters have noted, because all that fuel in the wings would make the landing dangerous. First, more weight on board means a higher speed is required for takeoff and landing (and therefore increasing the consequences of a mishap), and second, all that momentum from added fuel weight increases the chance of a ground loop if they should drag a wing while landing. Given all that fuel in the outboard tanks, it's obviously not worth the risk to test fly it with a full fuel load.
Slashdot Mirror
Trivia: believe it or not, the reason you dip the tanks is that good ol' FAA specs for fuel gauges on GA (general aviation) aircraft only require that they read accurately *when empty*. Other than telling you when you're empty, they're useless. I'd be surprised if Global Flyer doesn't have better guages than that, as well as very accurate fuel consumption guages. Reading the news on their site, it's the difference between the two that's "missing".
The statement that the tanks have never been tested full needs to be taken with a big grain of salt, as I'm sure that a competent outfit like Scaled Composites did everything they could short of an actual flight test. Hell, I'd feel safer on a first ride in one of their "experimental" aircraft than on most scheduled carriers.
Flight testing wouldn't be safe, as other posters have noted, because all that fuel in the wings would make the landing dangerous. First, more weight on board means a higher speed is required for takeoff and landing (and therefore increasing the consequences of a mishap), and second, all that momentum from added fuel weight increases the chance of a ground loop if they should drag a wing while landing. Given all that fuel in the outboard tanks, it's obviously not worth the risk to test fly it with a full fuel load.