Scaled Composites builds plane for solo nonstop globe circumnavigation attempt

[David O]

Aviation Week & Space Technology
10/27/2003, page 14

Virgin Atlantic Airways plans to use a Scaled Composites aircraft in
an attempt next year to complete the first solo nonstop
circumnavigation of the globe. The aircraft, dubbed the GlobalFlyer,
will be flown by either Steve Fossett or Virgin Atlantic Chairman
Richard Branson. Branson is acting as the reserve pilot. The aim is to
complete the flight in less than 80 hr. The Burt Rutan-designed,
composite-material aircraft has a maximum gross weight of 22,066 lb.
and an empty weight of 3,577 lb., which allows for 18,000 lb. of fuel.
Wingspan is 114 ft. The GlobalFlyer is powered by a single Williams
FJ44-3 turbofan engine. Maximum altitude for the pressurized cockpit
aircraft is 52,000 ft.

[Dave Hyde]

The clip you posted didn't say, and I haven't
gotten this weeks issue yet, but I presume this
is also unrefueled?

Dave 'vectors to the tanker!' Hyde

[Kevin Horton]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 00:01:13 +0000, Dave Hyde wrote:

> The clip you posted didn't say, and I haven't gotten this weeks issue yet,
> but I presume this is also unrefueled?
>
> Dave 'vectors to the tanker!' Hyde
>

"Sir Richard Branson and Steve Fossett announce plans to attempt the
world's first non-stop solo flight around the globe without refuelling."

http://www.virginatlanticglobalflyer.com/

--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
e-mail: khorton02(_at_)rogers(_dot_)com

[David O]

Dave Hyde > wrote:

>The clip you posted didn't say, and I haven't
>gotten this weeks issue yet, but I presume this
>is also unrefueled?
>
>Dave 'vectors to the tanker!' Hyde



Actually, Dave, the clip I posted was the entire article. To me,
though, 18,000 lb of fuel kinda screamed "unrefueled" anyway. I'm
sure it did to you as well. The artist's rendering in Aviation Week
appeared very Voyager-like so I didn't consider anything but
unrefueled until you posed the question. Kevin's link confirms it
will be an unrefueled attempt.

If the GlobalFlyer performs nominally it will likely be a much easier
trip for Fossett or Branson than it was for Dick and Jeana. In my
opinion, it will therefore be less of an achievement but still quite
interesting technically. The GlobalFlyer will fly above most weather
at 45,000 ft.

I put together this Voyager/GlobalFlyer comparison using actual
performance numbers from the Voyager and nominal numbers for the
GlobalFlyer:

Voyager GlobalFlyer

Wing Span (ft) 110.7 114
Empty Weight (lb) 2,250 3,577
T.O. weight (lb) 9,695 22,066
Useful Load (lb) 7,445 18,489
Fuel (lb) 7,011 18,000
Distance (sm) 26,366 23,000
Flight Time (hr) 216.06 80
Flight Time (days) 9 3.33
Avg Speed (mph) 122.03 287.5
Avg fuel burn rate (lb/hr) 32.36 225
Optimum altitude (ft) 8,000 45,000
Max altitude (ft) 20,500 52,000


David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com

P.S. The distance shown for the Voyager is the actual distance flown,
not the FAI credited distance. The Voyager average speed is based on
the actual distance flown. The max altitude figure for the Voyager is
the maximum achieved (over Africa) in an attempt to get above weather.
Notice that although it will be a solo attempt, the GlobalFlyer's
useful load would allow for two people plus full fuel.

[nafod40]

David O wrote:
> Dave Hyde > wrote:
>
>
>>The clip you posted didn't say, and I haven't
>>gotten this weeks issue yet, but I presume this
>>is also unrefueled?
>>
>>Dave 'vectors to the tanker!' Hyde

>
>
>
> Actually, Dave, the clip I posted was the entire article. To me,
> though, 18,000 lb of fuel kinda screamed "unrefueled" anyway.

A friend of mine logged a .3 while flying an F-111 at 300 feet and Mach
..95 (ingress) and Mach 1.3 (egress) in a Maple Flag exercise in Canada.
They burned 20,000+ lbs of go juice. I guess 18,000 lbs screamed "low
fuel light" to them. : )

>
> If the GlobalFlyer performs nominally it will likely be a much easier
> trip for Fossett or Branson than it was for Dick and Jeana. In my
> opinion, it will therefore be less of an achievement but still quite
> interesting technically. The GlobalFlyer will fly above most weather
> at 45,000 ft.

I've had an interest in dynamic soaring, where you can extract energy
from the boundary of two different air streams (it's how an albatross
stays airborne just above the ocean). The ultimate would be to soar the
boundary of the jet stream, unpowered. Probably not doable, but never
say never. you might be able to extend the range at least this way.

Google "dynamic soaring" for more info.

[Corky Scott]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 00:01:13 GMT, Dave Hyde > wrote:

>The clip you posted didn't say, and I haven't
>gotten this weeks issue yet, but I presume this
>is also unrefueled?
>
>Dave 'vectors to the tanker!' Hyde



Actually Dave, the article does say:

Sir Richard Branson and Steve Fossett announce plans to attempt the
world's first non-stop solo flight around the globe without
refuelling.

This is a quote from the article.

Corky Scott

[Bernie the Bunion]

> Corky Scott > wrote:


> Sir Richard Branson and Steve Fossett announce plans to attempt the
> world's first non-stop solo flight around the globe without
> refuelling.


Well now the Bunion is confused...... I thought that had already been
accomplished by the voyager flight.

where did they stop for fuel or what part of the globe did they not fly
around.

[Kyle Boatright]

"Bernie the Bunion" > wrote in message
...
> > Corky Scott > wrote:
>
>
> > Sir Richard Branson and Steve Fossett announce plans to attempt the
> > world's first non-stop solo flight around the globe without
> > refuelling.
>
>
> Well now the Bunion is confused...... I thought that had already been
> accomplished by the voyager flight.
>
> where did they stop for fuel or what part of the globe did they not fly
> around.

The key phrase there was "solo". The Voyager had a crew of two.

KB

[alexy]

Bernie the Bunion > wrote:

>> Corky Scott > wrote:
>
>
>> Sir Richard Branson and Steve Fossett announce plans to attempt the
>> world's first non-stop solo flight around the globe without
>> refuelling.
>
>
>Well now the Bunion is confused...... I thought that had already been
>accomplished by the voyager flight.
All but the "solo" part.
>
>where did they stop for fuel or what part of the globe did they not fly
>around.

--
Alex
Make the obvious change in the return address to reply by email.

[Corky Scott]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 17:01:42 GMT, Bernie the Bunion
> wrote:

>> Corky Scott > wrote:
>
>
>> Sir Richard Branson and Steve Fossett announce plans to attempt the
>> world's first non-stop solo flight around the globe without
>> refuelling.
>
>
>Well now the Bunion is confused...... I thought that had already been
>accomplished by the voyager flight.
>
>where did they stop for fuel or what part of the globe did they not fly
>around.

Heh heh, what does the word "solo" mean to Bunion's?

Corky Scott

[Larry Smith]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 17:01:42 GMT, Bernie the Bunion
> > wrote:
>
> >> Corky Scott > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Sir Richard Branson and Steve Fossett announce plans to attempt the
> >> world's first non-stop solo flight around the globe without
> >> refuelling.
> >
> >
> >Well now the Bunion is confused...... I thought that had already been
> >accomplished by the voyager flight.
> >
> >where did they stop for fuel or what part of the globe did they not fly
> >around.
>
> Heh heh, what does the word "solo" mean to Bunion's?
>
> Corky Scott


This time without Jeana? Well, they couldn't hardly stummick each other
the last time.

[Ghost]

"Bernie the Bunion" > wrote in message
...
| > Corky Scott > wrote:
|
|
| > Sir Richard Branson and Steve Fossett announce plans to attempt the
| > world's first non-stop solo flight around the globe without
| > refuelling.
|
|
| Well now the Bunion is confused...... I thought that had already been
| accomplished by the voyager flight.
|
| where did they stop for fuel or what part of the globe did they not fly
| around.

Still a play on words.. 'around the globe' should apply to a distance equal
to that at the equator or through the poles.. in other words a 'great circle
route'.. not merely around at some far shorter latitude.. just visit the
north or south pole, take one step aside, then circle the globe in a few
easy steps.. [g]

[Bernie the Bunion]

> Corky Scott > wrote:

> Heh heh, what does the word "solo" mean to Bunion's?
>
> Corky Scott

Well Corky that depends on whether or not it is a Saturday nite.

Just reading the thread in a casual manner I kept seeing
Sir Richard Branson and Steve Fossett's name being mentioned
and I couldn't quite figure out where the solo part was.

With the ego and money those two have it will be interesting to
see who the solo pilot is and who gets to sit on the ground and watch.

[Dave Hyde]

Larry Smith wrote:

> This time without Jeana?

This time without Dick too.

Dave 'No pun intended' Hyde

[Dave Hyde]

David O wrote:

> To me, though, 18,000 lb of fuel kinda screamed "unrefueled" anyway.

It's all a matter of scale. When I'm using my GA brain it
screams 'massive fuel spill,' but when I'm using my professional
brain it screams 'double cycle' or 'buster.' Both of my
brains tend to scream a lot, so it's sometimes hard to
decide which to listen to. Sometimes, and it happens here
a lot, I don't use either one.

Dave 'LALALALALALA' Hyde

[Russell Kent]

Bernie the Bunion wrote:

> > Corky Scott > wrote:
>
> > Heh heh, what does the word "solo" mean to Bunion's?
> >
> > Corky Scott
>
> Well Corky that depends on whether or not it is a Saturday nite.
>
> Just reading the thread in a casual manner I kept seeing
> Sir Richard Branson and Steve Fossett's name being mentioned
> and I couldn't quite figure out where the solo part was.
>
> With the ego and money those two have it will be interesting to
> see who the solo pilot is and who gets to sit on the ground and watch.

Maybe they're both going: one as pilot and one as passenger.

Russell "it's all in the interpretation" Kent

[Dave Hyde]

Russell Kent wrote:

> Maybe they're both going: one as pilot and one as passenger.

According to one person's account that's already been done. ;-)

Dave 'insider trading' Hyde

[Big John]

Russell

Don't have the magazine in front of me and to lazy to go get it from
house.

It did say that 'one' (Branson???) was the "back up" pilot.

Big John



On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 17:18:43 -0600, Russell Kent >
wrote:

>Bernie the Bunion wrote:
>
>> > Corky Scott > wrote:
>>
>> > Heh heh, what does the word "solo" mean to Bunion's?
>> >
>> > Corky Scott
>>
>> Well Corky that depends on whether or not it is a Saturday nite.
>>
>> Just reading the thread in a casual manner I kept seeing
>> Sir Richard Branson and Steve Fossett's name being mentioned
>> and I couldn't quite figure out where the solo part was.
>>
>> With the ego and money those two have it will be interesting to
>> see who the solo pilot is and who gets to sit on the ground and watch.
>
>Maybe they're both going: one as pilot and one as passenger.
>
>Russell "it's all in the interpretation" Kent

[Tim Ward]

"David O" > wrote in message
...

> P.S. The distance shown for the Voyager is the actual distance flown,
> not the FAI credited distance. The Voyager average speed is based on
> the actual distance flown. The max altitude figure for the Voyager is
> the maximum achieved (over Africa) in an attempt to get above weather.
> Notice that although it will be a solo attempt, the GlobalFlyer's
> useful load would allow for two people plus full fuel.

As long as they didn't eat or drink for three days.
Gives a whole new meaning to the term "a fast flight".

Tim Ward

[David O]

nafod40 > wrote:

>> Actually, Dave, the clip I posted was the entire article. To me,
>> though, 18,000 lb of fuel kinda screamed "unrefueled" anyway.

>A friend of mine logged a .3 while flying an F-111 at 300 feet and Mach
>.95 (ingress) and Mach 1.3 (egress) in a Maple Flag exercise in Canada.
>They burned 20,000+ lbs of go juice. I guess 18,000 lbs screamed "low
>fuel light" to them. : )

One word: context. A single Williams FJ44-3 turbofan, 18,000 lb of
fuel, and a composite aircraft built by Burt Rutan for an around the
world attempt screams "unrefueled" to me. It should also scream
unrefueled to those with a knowledge of modern small turbofan SFC's
and a modicum of common sense.

David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com

[David O]

"Tim Ward" > wrote:

>> Notice that although it will be a solo attempt, the GlobalFlyer's
>> useful load would allow for two people plus full fuel.

>As long as they didn't eat or drink for three days.
>Gives a whole new meaning to the term "a fast flight".
>
>Tim Ward


No "fast flight" needed:

Voyager, 2 people + food + water for 9 days: 434 lb.
GlobalFlyer, 2 people + food + water for 3.3 days: 489 lb.

David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com

[nafod40]

David O wrote:
> nafod40 wrote:
>
>
>>>Actually, Dave, the clip I posted was the entire article. To me,
>>>though, 18,000 lb of fuel kinda screamed "unrefueled" anyway.
>>
>
>>A friend of mine logged a .3 while flying an F-111 at 300 feet and Mach
>>.95 (ingress) and Mach 1.3 (egress) in a Maple Flag exercise in Canada.
>>They burned 20,000+ lbs of go juice. I guess 18,000 lbs screamed "low
>>fuel light" to them. : )
>
>
> One word: context. A single Williams FJ44-3 turbofan, 18,000 lb of
> fuel, and a composite aircraft built by Burt Rutan for an around the
> world attempt screams "unrefueled" to me. It should also scream
> unrefueled to those with a knowledge of modern small turbofan SFC's
> and a modicum of common sense.

Your reply to my post screams "lack of sense of humor"

[Dave Hyde]

David O wrote:

> It should also scream unrefueled to those with a
> knowledge of modern small turbofan SFC's
> and a modicum of common sense.

Look, I'm really sorry I asked, OK?

Dave 'outta decaf?' Hyde

[David O]

Dave Hyde > wrote:

>Look, I'm really sorry I asked, OK?

No, not OK. My pen has been too poison of late. Sorry for any
offense.

David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com