Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Technology Science

GlobalFlyer 'Round The World Solo Flight Takes Off 280

Posted by timothy from the bon-voyage-and-good-luck dept.
bryanthompson writes "The Virgin Atlantic GlobalFlyer took off from the Salina Municipal Airport this evening at about 6:47 CST. The Salina Airport was chosen for its central location, and the fact that it is one of the few air strips long enough for the flyer to take off successfully. The trip around the world is expected to take about 80 hours, with speeds averaging 285 mph. The craft was designed for Sir Richard Branson by Burt Rutan of Scaled Composites, who also designed SpaceShipOne." Steve Fossett is piloting the craft, intended (as reader aallan puts it), "to be the first solo non-stop flight around the world without refuelling."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

GlobalFlyer 'Round The World Solo Flight Takes Off More

GlobalFlyer 'Round The World Solo Flight Takes Off

Comments Filter:

  • 80 hours??, this /. editors ... (Score:5, Funny)

    by GNUALMAFUERTE ( 697061 ) <almafuerte@@@gmail...com> on Monday February 28, 2005 @10:52PM (#11809289)
    That should read 80 days, Passepartout!!

  • Live Tracking (Score:5, Informative)

    by KaSkA101 ( 692931 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @10:52PM (#11809291) Homepage
    Live Tracking [virginatla...lflyer.com]

  • sleepy? (Score:5, Funny)

    by tiredwired ( 525324 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @10:52PM (#11809295)
    Anyone know how you can stay up for 80hours straight and still land a plane? I'm not talking about Viagra.

    • Re:sleepy? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by hazee ( 728152 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @10:56PM (#11809318)
      I wonder why he has to - the plane has an autopilot, but the plan is to only sleep for a few minutes at a time.

      Considering that he'll have a chase plane beside him some of the time, you'd think he could just stick it on autopilot for a few hours nap, and people in the chase plane will yell over the radio to wake him up if anything goes amiss.

      But maybe that's stretching the definition of "solo flight".

      • Re:sleepy? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Martin Blank ( 154261 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @11:45PM (#11809628) Homepage Journal
        He'll be sleeping longer than a few minutes, but there won't be any eight-hour snoozes for him. The autopilot ensures that no matter what his alertness condition, the appropriate settings will be used to maximize fuel efficiency. He'll have the option of taking over in an emergency, but for the most part, he's just along for the ride.

        • Re:sleepy? (Score:3, Interesting)

          by HangingChad ( 677530 )
          Raises an interesting question. I'm wondering if you could create a flight management system that could handle the roll out, flight to a destination and successfully land with either minimal help from a human pilot or possibly none at all?

          Seems as if most of that technology already exists. Auto land has been around for quite a while, there are even model aircraft that can fly course, altitude and GPS waypoint profiles. What's keeping us from putting it all together?

          Seems like the only time a modern a

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
            Comment removed based on user account deletion

          • Re:sleepy? (Score:3, Funny)

            by VAXcat ( 674775 )
            That's the way it's headed. It's like that old joke about the cockpit complement on future airliners - instead of a pilot and a copilot, it will just be a pilot and a dog. The dog's job is to bite the pilot if he starts trying to mess with the controls.

    • Re:sleepy? (Score:3, Informative)

      by bwb ( 6483 )
      Modafinil [modafinil.com] might do the trick.

    • Re:sleepy? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Timesprout ( 579035 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @11:13PM (#11809434)
      Honestly, not trying to flame but this is not as hard as most people think and has obviously been taken into cosideration before they take off. i'm not saying its a doddle but the normal military thing is 2 on 2 off and you can go for a surprisingly long time.

      • Re:sleepy? (Score:3, Funny)

        by mickyflynn ( 842205 )
        yeah, but that's with a crew of 5 in a B-52 (with at least 2 flight-qualified individuals), or 2 in a B2 stealth bomber, both pilots. The military never would have built a one-man plane to fly 23-hour missions around the world and back.

        But this probably involves jolt cola or something.
    • Calis

  • First solo JET flight. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Bombcar ( 16057 ) <racbmob@bo[ ]ar.com ['mbc' in gap]> on Monday February 28, 2005 @10:53PM (#11809298) Homepage Journal
    I don't know if that's important, but it is the first solo non-refueling JET flight.
    • Actually, it is important. I don't think it has been done with props. The point was to get the pilot back as quickly as possible. Voyager wasn't a solo flight, there were two people that could trade shifts.

      • Re:First solo JET flight. (Score:4, Informative)

        by Martin Blank ( 154261 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @11:54PM (#11809672) Homepage Journal
        ...and end up basically hating each other by the end of the flight. Imagine sitting for several days in a closet with your significant other, not really able to move much, with little to no privacy, no washing, no change of clothes, and no way of just getting away for even a few minutes. As I recall, their relationship did not last much after the flight, and soured even further afterward.

    • It's not a jet, it's a turbofan. (Score:4, Informative)

      by psydragn ( 810601 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @02:47AM (#11810388)
      The GlobalFlyer is actually powered by a turbofan, not a jet. These engines use a jet engine to spin a fan which produces the majority of the thrust. Air entering the cowling is divided between entering a the compressor intake and (the majority) bypasses the compressor and is blown out by the fan. A minority percentage of the thrust actually comes from the combustion gases. Turbofans are what move commercial airliners. In a true jet powered craft, all the thrust comes from combustion gases.

  • First *jet* non-stop, wasn't it? (Score:3, Informative)

    by r.jimenezz ( 737542 ) <rjimenezh.gmail@com> on Monday February 28, 2005 @10:53PM (#11809299)
    "to be the first solo non-stop flight around the world without refuelling."

    I was under the impression Rutan himself achieved this many moons ago. This one would the first jet-powered craft to do it, though.

    • First SOLO non-stop unrefueled flight... (Score:5, Informative)

      by wasted ( 94866 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @10:57PM (#11809329)
      Mr. Rutan was accompanied by Ms. Yeager.
    • No, that was Burt Rutan's brother Dick, and Jeanne Yeager (who is Chuck's daughter, I believe). That was the first non-stop non-refueled flight, but it wasn't solo.
    • Saw the (slightly faded) pic of similarly-looking plane in one of our department more (way more) senior guy's office and today asked if this is the one which is going to fly. Nope, he said, THAT one was taken long time ago, and it was a non-solo flight, and on an internal combustion engine as well. This one is solo and with a jet engine.

      (And yes, he told me how he went to the Desert to see this thing take off and it was so loaded with fuel that its wings were almost touching the runway, it lost a little wi
      • [pedantry]Jet engines are internal combustion engines. The Rutan/Yeager flight was powered by two piston engines.

        The little thing lost off the wingtip was not a stabilizer, but a winglet. Its only function is to modify the airflow around the wingtip in a subtle way that decreases the drag slightly, and the impact of losing it was a decrease in gas mileage.[/pedantry]

        rj

      • at the end had enough fuel to fly to the east coast!

        No, he didn't. They were practically running on fumes when they landed:

        http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Explorers _ Record_Setters_and_Daredevils/rutan/EX32.htm [centennialofflight.gov]

        Rutan and Yeager completed their journey when they touched down at Edwards Air Force Base at 8:06 a.m. on December 23, 1986. The entire 24,986-mile trip had taken 9 days, 3 minutes, and 44 seconds, or a little more than 216 hours. During their trip, they had averaged around 116 miles

  • With so many stagnant, marketing-centric companies out there, it is good to see some real technical innovation come about. This is what the early inventors were all about, including the Wright Brothers; doing it to see if it can be done. Though I don't doubt that there is some profit motive, the market for this can't be the only motivator.
    • Though I don't doubt that there is some profit motive

      Think about it, any long distance you want to travel now stops for a layover, if for no reason then to refuel. Sometimes it's as far as that plane goes tho.

      Now there'll be no need to stop on a flight from New York to Tokyo.

    • Funny you should mention the Wright Brothers (Score:5, Informative)

      by joemc91 ( 757436 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @11:16PM (#11809453) Homepage
      They held up progress in aviation for almost 10 years in the US by making their plans secret and suing anybody who made planes. Their big patent fight was against Curtis Aircraft who invented ailerons, whereas the Wright's used wing-warping. During that time up till the early 20's, France took the lead in aviation, hence all the French sounding parts: fuselage, aileron, empenage, etc. Of course they contributed the most out of anyone in the old days but after the first few flyers there wasn't nearly as much innovation coming out of Wright Airplanes. The last truly succesful product they made, please correct me if I'm wrong, was the Wright Cyclone, a large radial engine used in WWII aircraft.
    • Though I don't doubt that there is some profit motive, the market for this can't be the only motivator.

      No, it's not about the market for the type of aircraft that he's actually flying on this trip - but of course it's about showcasing his team's technical skills and creativity. It's marketing, and it's all about keeping the name in the press. Certainly there's proof of concept and lots to learn, but he's got a lot of other irons in the fire, too. It's a lot like when a major movie studio makes an Oscar-w

  • Any landing you walk away from... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Vombatus ( 777631 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @10:55PM (#11809314)
    one of the few air strips long enough for the flyer to take off successfully

    I hope they have a few air strips along the way that are long enough for the flyer to land successfully - you know, in case of emergency.

    • GlobalFlyer's takeoff weight of 22,000lbs is more than six times its empty weight, so once some of that fuel is gone it will be able to use a much shorter runway.

    • Re:Any landing you walk away from... (Score:4, Informative)

      by the pickle ( 261584 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @11:49PM (#11809654) Homepage
      Landing generally takes anywhere from 3/4 to as little as about 1/3 of the length required to get off the ground. Obviously this depends a lot on the plane's design, but I've yet to see ANY fixed-wing aircraft that requires more runway to land than to take off. (The space shuttle doesn't count.)

      When you're landing, you can dump your (remaining) fuel and land at a much lighter weight, thereby giving the brakes less energy to dissipate. Also, brakes are typically far more efficient at destroying thrust than engines are at creating it. Finally, most aircraft have other thrust- and lift-destroying devices that can be deployed during a maximum-performance landing (thrust reversers, speed brakes, spoilers, etc.), all of which help to reduce the landing distance, but don't help takeoffs at all.

      The point of this long-windedness is basically to say that they won't have any problem finding emergency landing strips in the (fairly unlikely, IMO) event that they need one.

      IAAP&CFI.

      p

  • Looks to me (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ICECommander ( 811191 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @10:56PM (#11809315)
    like Scaled Composites is going to be the high-tech aerospace leader, first SpaceShipOne then this.
    Maybe they will get to Mars before NASA?

    • Re:Looks to me (Score:4, Informative)

      by Colgate2003 ( 735182 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @11:33PM (#11809550) Homepage
      Scaled Composites is a high-tech aerospace leader. Check out their projects page [scaled.com].

      Those are just the ones that they can tell you about. Scaled is where the Skunk Works and other such places go when even they can figure something out.

      • Re:Looks to me (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Colgate2003 ( 735182 )
        sorry:

        Scaled is where the Skunk Works and other such places go when even they can't figure something out.

      • Re:Looks to me (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @12:46AM (#11809872)
        I've never understood why people think of rutan as some sort of god of legendary designer when it comes to these things.

        Anyone in the Aerospace industry who knows anything about aircraft design can tell you that while rutan has had a few good designs, it isnt like he knows more than anyone else, but rather he has had the balls to go ahead and build things. Which is why he is on the map today.

        This aircraft is designed and built for a single mission. The structure is highly specialized and the craft does not have to take into account for any wide range of CG margins.

        Compare this to a commercial airliner like the new Boeing 777-200LR which must be able to fly at several different loading conditions over an incredible range... or perhaps the Lockheed-Martin F-35, in which one basic airframe is meeting the needs of 3 different branches of the military. The guys at Scaled may be good, however they arent any better than the guys at Boeing/Lockheed

        • Re:Looks to me (Score:3, Interesting)

          by grozzie2 ( 698656 )
          While they may be pretty good at designing / building one off special purpose aircraft, the track record in commercial aircraft is quite radically different. Starship was basically a Rutan design, done for beechcraft, and it even started into production. It was _such_ a good airplane, beech chose to buy them all back, and destroy them, rather than continue forward carrying the product liability risk of having that aircraft in commercial service. I wouldn't exactly call that a resounding vote of confidenc

  • I can almost see (Score:4, Funny)

    by EdwinBoyd ( 810701 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @10:57PM (#11809321)
    A frazzled billionare being extracted from the remnants of his mangled craft, breathlessly explaining to a throng of reporters. "It was going quite well, but the wind just picked up so suddenly we didn't have a chance. Damnable shame, ah well on to my next silly adventure/reality show"

    • Re:I can almost see (Score:2, Insightful)

      by MarkTina ( 611072 )
      Ahh Branson's my hero ... one of the few mega rich types where you see him spending money on and doing things we all wish to do but can't afford all the while enjoying himself ... rather than most of the other mega rich types who you see do sod all with their money and then die.
  • This kind of reminds me of the world's longest cheesecake record that someone set here a little while ago. I mean, sure, it's great to have a world record, but who cares? First solo, non-stop flight around the world, without refueling. Remove any one clause, and it's already been done.

    All that said, it's a big engineering challenge to build planes that can do this. Improvement in aviation technology is still a Good Thing. So good luck to him.
    • Maybe I'll be able to do the first solo, naked, non-stop flight around the world, without refueling.
    • Yeah, but remove any one clause, and doing it is also a lot less impressive (and, frankly, trivial).

      This is the last great milestone in powered fixed-wing aviation. There are a lot of milestones left elsewhere, but there isn't a whole lot else you can do with an airplane that runs on dead dino juice.

      Hey, how long 'till the first solo non-stop round-the-world human-powered flight? Without eating!

      p
    • It's worse than it appears, actually. Without removing any clauses, a solo, non-stop flight around the world, without refueling has already been done. It's only that the previous flights have all been either spacecraft or lighter-than-air balloons.

  • First Solo flight (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Marscity9 ( 737103 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @10:59PM (#11809345)
    I think that the flight you are refering to was a two person flight, and they managed to go around the world, although they had some problems with fuel management. Although no one has even flown solo around the world, he thought that that would be too easy, so he decided to challange himself, and use a jet instead of a prop. I suppose this could lead to more innovation in the idea of engine efficiency, but not all that much else (not to say that efficiency is a small matter).
    • "he decided to challange himself, and use a jet instead of a prop"

      I'm sure it was an engineering challenge, but it makes the flight a lot easier. The Voyager flight was over 200 hours.
      • Length isn't the only reason. The Global Flyer's service ceiling is about 50,000 feet. Voyager's was 11,000 (it was unpressurised). Even if Global Flyer's speed weren't so much faster, being above all the weather has some pretty huge advantages on its own.

        p

    • Re:First Solo flight (Score:5, Informative)

      by the pickle ( 261584 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @11:52PM (#11809665) Homepage
      Actually, not only has a solo circumglobal flight been done before, Fossett was the one who did it [wikipedia.org], albeit in a balloon.

      p

      • Actually, not only has a solo circumglobal flight been done before, Fossett was the one who did it, albeit in a balloon.

        Maybe the first man who did it solo, but the kudos go to Bertrand Piccard [wikipedia.org] and his co-pilot Brian Jones who did the thing first, 3 years before.

        Betrand Piccard is also an adventurer and pioneer like his father and grandfather. The next thing he plans to do is flying around the world, non-stop, in a solar powered aircraft. The project, Solar Impulse [solar-impulse.com] should also encourage the use of altern

  • Sounds like he'll be having a hell of a time trying to stay up for 80 hours surviving off his Strayberry Milkshakes [bbc.co.uk]! I'm guessing that he'll stink like a sailor by the time he's done though.

  • Voyager? (Score:4, Informative)

    by corngrower ( 738661 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @11:03PM (#11809367) Journal
    I remember when the first non-stop, non-refueled flight around the world was made back in about 1980. There were two pilots on board that time. One of the Rutans and a woman, Yeager, I believe.

    That plane was so loaded with fuel on takeoff, that the rate of climb was very very slow, maybe 150 ft/minute. The wings, which were loaded with fuel would droop down and had to be supported by small wheels at the wingtips until the plane gathered enough speed for the wings to develop lift.

    I wish Fosset good luck on this journey. Things will be touch and go for awhile until the fuel load has been lightened and the plane becomes responsive. A lot of things can go wrong, but hopefully improved technology will make things easier and improve his chance of success for this round the world flight.

    • Re:Voyager? (Score:5, Informative)

      by FuturePastNow ( 836765 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @11:35PM (#11809563)
      Voyager [wikipedia.org] was flown by Burt Rutan's brother, Dick, and Jeanna Yeager (no relation to Chuck) in 1986.

      As for the responsiveness issue, I bet that's why they delayed the flight for so long because of weather. To get clear skies for the first few hours. GlobalFlyer's [wikipedia.org] service ceiling is listed as 50,000 feet, which should put it above the weather for most of the flight (Voyager was unpressurised and could fly no higher than 11,000 feet, and so was much more subject to the weather).

  • What kind of jet? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by catisonh ( 805870 )
    All of this talk has looked over one important aspect: the jet engine he is using on his aircraft. If I remember correctly, jet engines are fuel hogs, so:

    A) What kind of jet is he using?

    B) How is he storing all that fuel?
    • B) How is he storing all that fuel?

      I believe that part, at least, was answered in the article. Notably, the picture at the bottom explains some of the more "technical" details for inquiring minds.

      Nothing to see here......

    • Re:What kind of jet? (Score:4, Informative)

      by xlv ( 125699 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @11:49PM (#11809649)
      A) What kind of jet is he using?

      B) How is he storing all that fuel?

      Both answers can be found in the plane description at http://www.virginatlanticglobalflyer.com/Aircraft/ Introduction/index.jsp [virginatla...lflyer.com]:
      The aircraft is a trimaran-like construction with two huge external 'booms' which hold the landing gear, and 5,454 pounds of fuel on either side of the pilot's cockpit in the centre on top of which is the single Williams turbofan jet engine.

    • Re:What kind of jet? (Score:5, Informative)

      by spankey51 ( 804888 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @11:56PM (#11809677)
      The "Jet" or "gas turbine" is a turbofan engine similar to those fitted to small corporate aircraft like Learjets... They are not gas hogs.
      To be clearer: they are at low altitudes. At 45,000 feet (Global Flyer's cruising altitude,) the fuel efficiency is impecable.

      Fuel is stored in tanks in the wings, pontoons and forward fuselage... basically, the plane is a fishtank for a couple hours until he can get some fuel out of the wings and make it into a more "flyable" bomb.

      If internal compustion engines were more efficient than gas turbines, why weren't they implemented in the airline industry?

      Furthermore, I'd much rather have a turbine because they have so few moving parts... the simplest have one! Less to breakdown on you while you are pissing out the window into an infinite void of pacific waves 45,000 feet below...

      • Re:What kind of jet? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Alioth ( 221270 ) <no@spam> on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @07:20AM (#11811183) Journal
        In terms of thermodynamic efficiency, the best engines in general use were the massive 'corncob' engines used in piston engined airliners. Not jet (turbofan engines) - well, with one notable exception of course.

        The reason why airliners went to jets rather than staying with the more fuel efficient piston engines is that turbine engines (not just jets, but turboprop engines) are much smaller and lighter for a given amount of horsepower. Piston engines large enough to power an airliner the size of a B777 would be impractially large, even if they were actually fuel efficient. Additionally, propeller driven aircraft can't fly at high percentages of the speed of sound very well.

        Until fairly recently, turbine engines were really horrible when it came to fuel efficency. Small turbines still are pretty awful - compare the fuel burn of a Piper Malibu with the piston engine with the Piper Malibu with the Jetprop DLX conversion. The Jetprop DLX conversion is worse in every respect *except* for the weight of the engine and the reliability and the vibration levels (turbines tend to be a lot more reliable). It burns a hell of a lot more fuel and costs a hell of a lot more to maintain. It's only with the giant turbofans that power the B777 have jet engines got anywhere close to piston engines for thermodynamic efficiency. And the huge engines the B777 are fitted with are pretty damn efficient.

        The one notable exception is Concorde. At supersonic speeds, its straight turbojet engines were the most thermodynamically efficient turbine engines ever made, and to my knowlege they still hold that title. This is one of the reasons why Concorde was an (engineering, not commercial!) success, but the Russian Tu-144 was not; the Tu-144 couldn't even maintain supersonic speed without running afterburners. Concorde could supercruise at Mach 2. (Also, contrary to popular belief, the Tu-144 was not a copy of Concorde, it was only superficially similar to Concorde but was different in almost every other important respect).
    • It's a Williams FJ44 turbofan. More about that at the Global Flyer Wikipedia page [wikipedia.org]. Fairly common engine these days, used on (or planned for) several other light jets.

      And for the thrust you get out of them, jets -- particularly high-bypass turbofans, which are almost like a direct-drive ducted turboprop -- are FAR more efficient than piston engines. Granted, they *do* have to store more fuel on this than on Voyager, but they've enlarged the wings a bit and probably have more room in the fuselage, since ther
    • There was a good article in Wired that answers all of your questions. He is using a really, really teeny jet engine that is one of the most efficient in the world (the 2nd most, I believe). The fuel is stored in 2 side fusalages. Most of the weight of the aircraft is in fact the fuel, and the thing is so light and frail that it can only be flown once (not including the very gentle testing flights).
    • Also, to answer the 80 hours question: He has said that the thing basically flies itself except for the couple of hours after takeoff and before landing when the thing is struggling to change altitude. He will take cat naps during the 65 or so interviening hours, if he can sleep with the low altitude turbulance and noice from an uninsulated turbine 4 feet behind his head. I imagine he has some high quality legal stimulants to keep him aware when he needs to be.
    • I believe that he stocked up on baked beans and chili powder for the flight.

  • Next... first while wearing tutu (Score:5, Funny)

    by simetra ( 155655 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @11:07PM (#11809395) Homepage Journal
    First solo flight around the world wearing a tutu.
    Next will be first solo flight around the world wearing a tutu while humming "Windy"... Who's walking down the streets of the city, smiling at every body she sees... yadda yadda

    Then, first solo flight around the world while building a little ship inside a bottle......

  • Shame about the refueling (Score:4, Informative)

    by QuantumG ( 50515 ) <qg@biodome.org> on Monday February 28, 2005 @11:09PM (#11809411) Homepage Journal
    The fastest jet plane in the world is still the SR71 Blackbird [aerospaceweb.org]. It flew at Mach 3.35 or 2,275 mph (3,660 km/h). The circumference of the earth [about.com] is 24,859.82 miles (40,008 km). So that means the Blackbird would do a flight around the world in 11 hours. Unfortunately it only had a range of 2,590 nm (4,800 km), so it would have to refuel at least 9 times. In a way, it's amazing that someone can build a plane that can carry enough fuel and still do the trip in less than 8x the time.
    • faster [nasa.gov]
    • Unfortunately it only had a range of 2,590 nm

      Before I realized that 'nm' are "nautical miles" (being a bit confused by 'km' right next to 'em), I thought it stood for nanometers... ;-) Would be a REALLY bad range for a plane, but being able to control it down to the third digit IS remarkable ;-) ).

      I would not even go on the old "Soviet Russian" joke (from real Russia, back in Soviet times) -- "Why, so short? Nope, so RED!" this time ;-)

      Paul B.

    • Re:Shame about the refueling (Score:4, Informative)

      by NormalVisual ( 565491 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @01:01AM (#11809955)
      More interesting still is that the plane is about a foot or so longer while flying at operational speed than on the ground, owing to the frictional heat. This is the reason for the grooves in the fuselage - they allow the skin to expand uniformly instead of trying to curl up. The SR's also leak fuel like sieves until they can get up to speed and the tanks seal properly, thus one of the first actions taken after takeoff is a midair refuelling, shortly followed by the proverbial leap to hyperspace.

      Kelly Johnson was one extremely smart guy.
    • The SR-71 was a bad mother. The last flight of an SR-71 was from Palmdale AFB to Washington, D.C., in slightly over 1 hour.

  • Ok let me get this straight (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 28, 2005 @11:11PM (#11809428)
    They spent all kinds of money to design and build a machine that would consume fuel for 80 hours and then be where it started from.

    I propose that a more cost effective device. It would be made of baked clay. This rectangular object could be placed at any location. Not just on a runway. 80 hours later we could verify that it was it was still there.

  • Wasn't that done by Yuri Gagarin back in 1961? And he went around several times.

    Okay, I'll grant that the vehicle wasn't very usable after the flight.

  • this makes no sense (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Mantorp ( 142371 ) <mantorp 'funny A' gmail.com> on Monday February 28, 2005 @11:40PM (#11809592) Homepage Journal
    from this cnn article [cnn.com]

    The flight plan was adjusted once more later Monday after Algeria closed a portion of its airspace, mission control director Kevin Stass said. The change, he said, would slightly reduce the overall length of the flight and save some of the 18,000 pounds of fuel aboard the single-engine jet.

    It can only mean that they were going out of their way to fly over Algeria in their initial plans, but that makes even less sense.

    • It can only mean that they were going out of their way to fly over Algeria in their initial plans, but that makes even less sense.

      Sure it can. IAAP (I am a pilot) and especially for a relatively risky flight like this, it makes good sense to sometimes go a bit out of one's way so as to fly a route closer to available facilities or over better terrain.

      Assuming the report is accurate, you could say the decreased fuel burn is the up side of the change. The down side is the new route may carry some increas

  • How far south do you have to be? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by btempleton ( 149110 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @11:44PM (#11809621) Homepage
    I mean any long-range plane can fly "around the world" at 89 degrees latitude, if it can get there. And these guys are not flying a great circle. So clearly there is some magic latitude that counts as going around the world, and some other that doesn't.

    So how do you possibly decide what it is? Is 45 degrees enough? Above a certain latitude, weather and national politics might create an issue of course. They are getting down to 15 degrees in Hawai`i so it looks "real" but how do you quantify it?

    • Re:How far south do you have to be? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Panaflex ( 13191 ) <<convivialdingo> <at> <yahoo.com>> on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @12:14AM (#11809751)
      Read here [virginatla...lflyer.com]

      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.

      They're going to try to catch the most wind they can.. so there will be some deviation in the flight plans I'm sure as they follow the currents.

      -Pan

  • Fuel efficiency (Score:2, Interesting)

    by leipzig3 ( 528671 )
    So this thing weighs 10 tons. 83% of that is fuel so 8300 kg. It has 15% extra fuel as reserve, so it will need an estimated 7000 kilograms. Fuel has a density of around .83 Kg/L so this is 8400 L of fuel. The circumference of the earth is 40,000 km leading to a fuel efficiency of 21 L/100 km. Or... in miles per gallon it would be 26000 miles/2200 gallons = 12 miles per gallon. Not bad at all for a 10 ton craft (initially) that flies. In fact, it beats the hummer and many SUV's.

  • Impressive, but wait what Boeing has planned. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MtViewGuy ( 197597 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @04:04AM (#11810670)
    I've heard that Boeing wants to demonstrate the extreme long range of the new 777-200 Long Range model by doing what could be the longest flight ever by a standard jet engine airliner.

    Remember, the 777-200LR can fly over 9,000 nautical miles with a standard passenger load and a slightly-reduced cargo load with extra fuel tanks; imagine stripping down a 777-200LR so you can can get the weight equivalent of the cabin fittings and cargo load in extra fuel load. Pre-cool all that Jet A fuel and this modified 777-200LR could probably travel over 13,000 nautical miles easily, though a round-the-world non-stop flight is probably out of the question.

Slashdot Top Deals

HELP!!!! I'm being held prisoner in /usr/games/lib!

Close