Slashdot Log In
Solar Plane Breaks Endurance Record
Posted by
timothy
on Sun Aug 24, 2008 08:43 PM
from the never-even-been-awake-that-long dept.
from the never-even-been-awake-that-long dept.
calmond writes with this excellent snippet from CNET News: "QinetiQ Group PLC claimed Sunday that its propeller-driven aircraft called Zephyr flew for 83 hours and 37 minutes non stop, more than doubling the official world record set by Northrop Grumman's Global Hawk in 2001. The Zephyr is much different from the Global Hawk, which is about the size of a fighter and requires runway for taking off and landing. Zephyr, on the other hand, is an ultra-lightweight carbon-fiber aircraft that weighs less than 70lbs and is designed to launch by hand. The little aircraft flies on solar power generated by amorphous silicon arrays covering the aircraft's paper-thin wings. It is powered day and night by rechargeable lithium-sulfur batteries that are recharged during the day using solar power."
Related Stories
[+]
Hardware: Robotic Glider Set To Break Autonomous Flight Records 33 comments
SoaringIsAwesome writes "Dan Edwards, a student at NC State University, is attempting to break two records by creating an autonomous glider. The project goal is a 142-mile cross country flight and a 25-mile flight (with return) without human intervention. The glider finds thermal updrafts and automatically circles them to gain altitude, much like birds and insects do. Recently, the glider flew in the desert for 4.5 hours, covering 70.5 miles by itself using only air currents to stay aloft. Since the NC State demonstration vehicle does not have a motor, this shows real promise for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) that actually have a motor, with possibilities of extending flight duration considerably. Combine daytime soaring with a solar energy system to charge batteries for the night, such as the 84-hour flight by QinetiQ's Zephyr, and you might just get an answer to flying for months on end. With this kind of endurance, the eye in the sky that the city of Lancaster is considering might be even more practical."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
The record is only for unmanned aircraft. (Score:5, Interesting)
Manned aircraft still have that record beat. Humm several days in an airplane... What fun.
...and this isn't a new one... (Score:4, Insightful)
If I get to set my own rules, I can break records, too.
Parent
Re:...and this isn't a new one... (Score:5, Interesting)
If I get to set my own rules, I can break records, too.
Maybe. That doesn't mean their record isn't legitimate, especially if the "rule" they disregarded was irrelevant, and especially since they have flown further than anybody else.
Parent
Re:...and this isn't a new one... (Score:5, Informative)
[The record] remains "unofficial" because QinetiQ did not involve the FAI (Federation Aeronautique Internationale), the world air sports federation, which sanctions all record attempts.
I think it's fair to say that regardless of who officiates it, they have broken the record.
Parent
Re:Nope. (Score:5, Insightful)
I suppose you might question the authenticity of the tests, but given who these people are (and indeed who they work for [e.g. US military]), I think the results can be trusted.
Parent
Verification (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't confuse a "feat" with a "record". Feats are what people do. Records are feats that can be proven to have happened. If an achievement is not properly documented, there's no way to know for sure whether it was done.
So it's not whether or not the feat was surpassed, it's whether the feat was surpassed in a way that can be verified. I can say to you that I've got a cure for cancer, or tell you that I can run 30 MPH barefoot, but neither claim means anything there's some verification of the process - some official body (EG: the American Medical Association in the United States) has performed testing to some standard process to verify that the cancer cure I claim actually works at least most of the time. (In medicine, almost nothing works 100% of the time, not even aspirin [drugtext.org])
You and I have no particular doubt that they flew the time they're claiming. But if it has not passed the most widely recognized process for validating this record, the RECORD still stands, and will stand until the proper process has been followed to record the fact that the old record has been broken.
However, they have a plan, which entails aircraft like this flying for MONTHS ON END. So they probably don't much care about documenting the record, since their numbers are likely to improve dramatically over the next year or so. Why go through the effort of documenting what is, for them, a rather minor, incremental step, solely to prove a record?
Parent
Re:The record is only for unmanned aircraft. (Score:5, Informative)
http://thelongestlistofthelongeststuffatthelongestdomainnameatlonglast.com/long219.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1998/11/98/great_balloon_challenge/299568.stm
Cessna out of Nevada flew for 64 days, 22 hours, covering the equivalent of 6 circumferences of the earth. In flight refueling, and they dropped down to just above ground level to pick up supplies from a chase car.
Parent
Re:The record is only for unmanned aircraft. (Score:5, Informative)
Valeri Polyakov did a 437 day flight, with a flight distance covering more than 7 thousand times the circumference of the earth.
Of course, his flight being disregarded isn't surprising, him not being an American.
Consider:
Eilmer of Malmesbury, who flew 220 yards in a glider in the 11th century
Lagari Celebi, who flew an unspecified distance with a rocket in 1633 (well documented!)
Henri Giffard, who flew 16 miles in a powered airship in 1852
George Cayley, who flew a mile in a controlled glider in 1853
John Stringfellow, who flew several dozen feet in a powered monoplane in 1868
Clement Adler, who flew 60 yards in a powered monoplane in 1890, and 320 yards in 1987
Richard Pearse, who flew over 1000 yards, including a controlled turn, in May 1903
Orville Wright, who flew 120 yards in a powered but wind-aided biplane in December 1903
Wilbur Wright, who flew 190 yards in a powered but wind-aided biplane in December 1903
Who gets honoured with having made the first flight? The Americans, of course! The "rules" have been rewritten several times after the fact to include the Wrights and exclude others.
So I guess that the rules for flight now specifically excludes orbital flights in order to disqualify MIR. Eppur si vola.
Parent
Re:The record is only for unmanned aircraft. (Score:4, Insightful)
The Wrights published their flights and marketed their airplanes. They developed them into a successful business.
Pearse worked in obscurity.
Flights of Adler's steam powered airplanes were not well-publicized and the French government kept results of the 1897 flight secret for a while.
Consequently, the momentum of publicity has kept the Wright's name in the forefront. I do not intend to diminish the accomplishments of Adler and Pearse.
_ It's only reasonable to exclude "flights" outside the atmosphere, otherwise we'll have to make special rules to exclude the moon and man-made satellites from consideration. If you aren't continuously using the atmosphere for aerodynamic lift, you're not flying.
Parent
Re:The record is only for unmanned aircraft. (Score:5, Interesting)
>
So I guess that the rules for flight now specifically excludes orbital flights in order to disqualify MIR. Eppur si vola.
"Orbital flight" would be a misnomer at best. An object in orbit isn't "flying", it's falling.
And no, I don't think that's nitpicking. Once you're in orbit, it's not much of a feat to remain there, supply logistics notwithstanding.
Parent
Re:The record is only for unmanned aircraft. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:The record is only for unmanned aircraft. (Score:5, Interesting)
Is this informative because of its "anti-american" bend or because it has information? If its because of the provided "information" than the Moderators should actually check out these "factiods" before modding the post. For example:
"Valeri Polyakov did a 437 day flight, with a flight distance covering more than 7 thousand times the circumference of the earth.
Of course, his flight being disregarded isn't surprising, him not being an American."
Yeah... 437 day SPACE FLIGHT....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valeriy_Polyakov [wikipedia.org]
No one was talking about "manned space flight"... because in that case, no shit sherlock, 60 odd days isnt shit.
The Americans didnt "change the rules". The reason the above mentioned individuals werent given credit for the "discovery" of flight is because their inventions simply did not translate into successful reproducible air travel. I mean, those guys dont have anything on... BIRDS... that were flying long before man. Why were BIRDS given credit for the discovery of flight...
"So I guess that the rules for flight now specifically excludes orbital flights in order to disqualify MIR. Eppur si vola."
Yes sparky... RTFA... This is about UNMANNED SUB ORBITAL flight... because if you werent then you would have to talk about VOYAGER I and II... which are have been going for 30+ years and are unmanned and again... American. Oh snap...
Parent
BBC report with video is better (Score:5, Informative)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7577493.stm [bbc.co.uk]
Lithium-Sulfur Batteries (Score:5, Informative)
Qinetic not very upset at all (Score:5, Interesting)
What about the Condor UAV? (Score:5, Informative)
I think the claim to have beaten the Global Hawk by 2x is a bit misleading - it implies a doubling of existing capabilities. In fact, it only UNOFFICIALLY doubles an OFFICIAL record, which itself is not the longest flight recorded by any means. In 1989 a Boeing UAV named Condor flew over 58 hours, and had a design endurance of 80 hours. Okay, they never claimed it as an official record, but it was still a valid flight, just like this was.
Here's an interesting video:
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/boeing-condor-uav/4285692709 [aol.com]
And some facts:
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=7988 [af.mil]
Granted, the Zephyr is theoretically limited only by the service life of its electrical components - it could stay up until something broke or wore out. But please, let's use real facts here.
Re:Fly forever! (Score:5, Insightful)
If it was that easy, they could just go to one of the poles where the sun never sets for half a year. Though I suppose the ambient temperature and low angle might be a letdown. On an equally unrealistic note, to travel with the sun at equator it'd have to do 40000km in 24 hours = 1667km/hour. Yes, we can make planes that fast OR planes that lightly glide using solar power but I'm pretty sure we won't get both at once.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Fly forever! (Score:5, Informative)
But it did come down, which means, some resource got drained... Which one? The batteries, which may have been only partially recharging during the day, is one possible explanation....
The first people to fly a solar-powered plane through the night, Tom Gage and his team at AC Propulsion, flew for 48 hours...and could have probably flown forever -- the resource that was drained was the on-ground pilots.
The plane was flown to use thermals as much as possible during the day, but it was tiring work.
Anyway, after two days, and with a battery charge higher than what they started at, they figured that they had made their point.
Parent
Re:Fly forever! (Score:4, Interesting)
Perhaps for military use it's desirable to fly that low, but another way to get a solar plane flying forever is to get it light enough and get the sink rate low enough (1 foot/second) that it can glide all night (100000 feet -> 40000 feet) and still be in the lower stratosphere by sunrise. That way you don't need batteries, and you'll always be above the clouds and weather.
A plane designed for this will be flimsy and fly extremely slowly near ground (slower than walking speed), so it'd have to be launched and retrieved during calm weather, but once up, there would be very little to go wrong - at most latitudes it could circle in one spot indefinitely.
Parent
Re:Interesting feat (Score:5, Insightful)
Yea Goddard's liquid rocket was a waste of time. It only flew 40 feet and couldn't even carry a payload! The idea was nice, but it was nothing more than a child's toy.
Seriously though, it's a step towards making long term solar powered flight work. Creating aircraft able to keep flying indefinitely on solar power is not trivial. Once we can make it work though, then it's time to start scaling it up and sticking payloads on it.
A solar powered aircraft able to stay in the air for months or years at a time would be a hell of a lot cheaper than a satellite while being able to perform many of the same jobs.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What is its purpose? (Score:5, Funny)
Nope. The whole thing was built only to be mentioned on Slashdot.
Parent
QinetiQ (Score:4, Informative)
QinetiQ CIA link [timesonline.co.uk]
QinetiQ, the British defence and security technology company that was spun out of the Ministry of Defenceâ(TM)s research laboratory, has appointed George Tenet, 53, former head of the CIA in America, a non-executive director. The company hopes to develop closer links with the US intelligence establishment.
Parent