

Global Flyer Part 2 113
nsasch writes "The Global Flyer just wasn't enough for Steve Fossett. He's going again, this time to make the world's longest (in length) flight, ever. He is currently over the Atlantic ocean and can be tracked online.
He will be flying for 3 days with 18000 pounds of fuel (~8164 kilograms).
More information, tracking, Microsoft Flight Simulator models, and background images are available from Virgin Atlantic."
Him again? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are breaking records to prove it to yourself... that is one thing. When you are buying media time to brag... then you are a loser in my book. A dam rich loser, but a loser nonetheless.
Re:Him again? (Score:2, Insightful)
Why? Would you date him if he wren't so full of himself? Sheesh... get over it.
Re:Him again? (Score:2)
That was a great song by the Godfathers, on Birth School Work Death.
Re:Him again? (Score:1)
Since I'm mathematically illeterate ("innumerate") I think, "What a waste of fuel!" We should ban him from doing this. Derring-do and records and forging new ground and exploration and "pushing the envelop" have no business in a modern democracy. If you don't have the permission of the people, you have nothing
My leaders tell me that! I voted for them.
Tear him down! If he wants to do this, make him do it from some other stupid country.
Re:Him again? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Him again? (Score:1)
Re:Him again? (Score:1)
He lands and the ladies swarm him. "Do you want sex with me because I'm a billionaire or because I own a music company or because I'm a daring adventurer?" "Can't we love you for all three reasons?"
We should all be such losers.
Re:Him again? (Score:1)
Re:Him again? (Score:2)
Re:Him again? (Score:2)
Re:Him again? (Score:2)
Re:Him again? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Him again? (Score:1)
I consider Melvil and the rest of the SpaceShipOne test pilots, "real" pilots...
-B
re: him again? (Score:2)
-- Lindberg didn't strap wings on and *fly*, he used ENGINES. With all that technology, anyone could have done it. Thus, no big deal. Besides, what'll ever come of it? Ditto every other pioneering act.
-- Astronauts are, by your offhand and disparaging definition, just ballast.
-- So are racecar drivers, stunt doubles, vice-presidents and moms. And don't even get me started on redundant hardware.
-- Anyone that thinks that gadgetry prevents problems hasn't paid at
Re:Him again? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want to really get down to it, the whole X-prize was nothing more than a giant PR stunt. "Hey! look at us! we can get a bunch of rich guys to spend money! We're boldy going where man has been going for about 40 years now!"
But before you break out the flamebait mods: It was a PR stunt with a purpose. Without the X-prize, private space flights would've remained a "neat idea." Now, in a few years, maybe (if you're rich enough. Or if you win a contest) you could take a quick flight into space. Ya blatant PR and shameless rich guy whoring!
Yeah, we've already flown around the world and Fossett isn't exactly treading new ground. But maybe stunts like this spur on new advances in aviation. Maybe a company decides they want to be the next scaled composites and starts kicking money to R & D. Maybe somebody is inspired to look at the way things are being done and decides they can do better. Maybe.
Re:Him again? (Score:2)
Re:Him again? (Score:3, Funny)
Fossett? Yeah, it's a turn off. The guy's a slow leak. Kind of a drip really. All wet. And his sucesses aren't consistant; really he runs hot and cold. Some say he's washed up, but that's sinking really low.
Oh, Fossett? I thought you said Faucet. Nevermind.
The astronauts had it right (Score:1)
Unfortunately, this Fossett guy is going to end up dead or in jail one of these days.
(And if you're in jail...)
Re:The astronauts had it right (Score:2)
Re:The astronauts had it right (Score:1)
How do they define "longest flight"? (Score:4, Interesting)
Do they say that the record is only available to jet-powered flight? Or do you have to be under power the whole time? Why doesn't a space agency hold this record?
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:How do they define "longest flight"? (Score:5, Funny)
Or, to rephrase slightly, orbit is when you throw yourself at the ground and miss.
KFG
Re:How do they define "longest flight"? (Score:2)
Re:How do they define "longest flight"? (Score:1)
He also left out the fact that to pull it off successfully you need to take a running start.
KFG
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How do they define "longest flight"? (Score:1)
And no, the Guiness Book of World Records holds no authority in the aerospace community.
And might I add... (Score:1)
Re:How do they define "longest flight"? (Score:2)
Orbit: if you stop thrusting, you crash and burn after a year or two.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How do they define "longest flight"? (Score:2)
At least someone . . (Score:5, Interesting)
It really puts a smile on my face to hear about this sort of thing. The sooner we make ultra distance flights old hat, the sooner our solar system won't seem so big.
Re:At least someone . . (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:At least someone . . (Score:1)
Long distance flights haven't mattered for heavier than air vehicles since the 1930s. People can fly anywhere on earth without more than a couple connecting flights. The distance problem today is largely solved; what matters now is speed. Two hours from NYC to Tokyo would be nice. Wing/body aerodynamics aren't the only issue there of course... vast reductions in flight times require improvements in propulsion that we've all heard abou
Re:At least someone . . (Score:2)
Re:My Prediction: (Score:2)
Oh No! (Score:1)
Seems the article has been in limbo for a while.
What about efficient use of our resources? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:What about efficient use of our resources? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:What about efficient use of our resources? (Score:3, Funny)
Does it have to be in production right now? (Score:2)
What do I win?
Re:Does it have to be in production right now? (Score:2)
Re:What about efficient use of our resources? (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_A [wikipedia.org]
Re:What about efficient use of our resources? (Score:1)
Compared to U.S. military in Iraq... (Score:1, Informative)
the U.S. military is now using about 3 million gallons of fuel per day in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom
I'll leave it up to you to decide whether this is an efficient use of resources or not.
The longest... (Score:3, Insightful)
As opposed to what, exactly? Isn't "longest" usually a relative measure of, uhm, length?
Do you mean longest in terms of distance or duration? I'm fairly certain you ment distance, but you were totally ambiguous in the posting even though you made an attempt to clarify parenthetically.
Re:The longest... (Score:2)
Re:The longest... (Score:3, Informative)
Well thanks for clarifying than then. (Score:1)
"Duration" or "distance" might have been more informative IMO.
Now I've got to read the damn article!
Re:Well thanks for clarifying than then. (Score:2)
It's the longest (in length) (Score:1)
Ah! Thanks for the explanation.
Re:It's the longest (in length) (Score:3, Insightful)
The disambiguation was completely necessary.
Re:It's the longest (in length) (Score:2)
The point was that the disambiguation wasn't very good. Longest in lenght could refer to length... of time. "Longest (in distance)" would have been much better.
snark (Score:1, Redundant)
This is imporant for Aviation (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This is imporant for Aviation (Score:1)
Yes, but this is how far you can get without refueling. Thats the whole point. To refuel commercial plains in the air is hardly a good alternative.
Re:This is imporant for Aviation (Score:2)
> Also how long you can fly before the fuel weight works against you, how fast
> you can fly in order to get the longest distance etc.
These were all burning questions - in 1935. Charles Lindberg did exactly this sort of analysis in 1927 and the basic concepts are completely unchanged since then. The only reason this couldn't have been done in the 30's is that the engines weren't reliable enough.
Re:This is imporant for Aviation (Score:1)
Latest update on web page (Score:2)
Sounds like a blast to me.
wings (Score:2)
he was planning on setting a new record a couple months ago with global flyer, but the crew scrapped up one of he wings, iirc.
3530 lbs unloaded. Pretty cool.
Re:Yeah, so? (Score:1)
More efficent (Score:1)
Re:More efficent (Score:2)
Re:More efficent (Score:1)
Drugged up? (Score:4, Interesting)
Does he get to take amphetamines during this time? Or are US drug laws too strict to allow this (given that he started in Florida.)
Re:Drugged up? (Score:1)
The commander of a flying machine or glider registered in the United Kingdom shall cause one pilot to remain at the controls at all times while it is in flight.
You can't have an aircraft without a pilot in command, and I imagine most other countries have similar provisions. More information on this anyone?
Windows Media only? (Score:2)
branson just flew in (Score:2)
Longer in length? (Score:2)
Re:Longer in length? (Score:1)
Re:Longer in length? (Score:2)
In that case the Sputnik satellite [wikipedia.org] should be among the winners: it'd quite hard for a hydrogen baloon to fly years!
X-Plane model (Score:2)
Get back to me, OK, Richy-B (Score:2)
41 GPH? (Score:1)
Re:41 GPH? (Score:1)
Re:41 GPH? (Score:2)
Re:41 GPH? (Score:1)
Re:41 GPH? (Score:1)
Global Flyer: the Movie (Score:1)
Re:On this I have to say..., (Score:1)
How do you know he's not? Even if he isn't who are you to judge? What if I said your posting on Slashdot was pointless and that you should take the $50 a month you're spending on your internet connection and send it to the local homeless shelter? You'd think I was a git, right? Think about it.