Real Holder of the Glider Altitude Record, NOT RUTAN ON 21 JUNE

[Janus2k]

From Current issue of EAA Sport Aviation, June 04.
Letter to the editor:
"I've enjoyed all the articles you've done on Bruce Bohannon's record
attempts. However, every time I read one I always wondering the same thing at
the end: When is he going to pass the current glider altitude record (49,009
feet)?
He only has about 2,000 more feet to go!"
Written by Bob Mowry, whom I suspect could be lurking here! Congrats!!!!!!!
Made my day.
What Rutan doing is great, however it's not a glider in my humble opinion.
Would we consider Bob Harris the altitude record holder if he towed to 49,009
and then glided back to Cal City?

Just thought I stir it up a little!!!!!!!!

Mark Mahan
2K

[Arbr64]

> What Rutan doing is great, however it's not a glider in my humble opinion.
> Would we consider Bob Harris the altitude record holder if he towed to
49,009
> and then glided back to Cal City?
>
Of course not.
The SS1 is a Rocket Plane, it qualifies under the "Aircraft launched by a
carrier Airplane" category, exactly like the X-15 decades before, which
never claimed a "Soaring Performance" Record.

FAI specifies a Motor-glider as being a "A fixed wing aerodyne equipped with
means of propulsion (MoP), capable of sustained soaring flight without
thrust from the means of propulsion."

The X-15's and SS1's performances are 100% dependent on their engines and
ballistic trajectories (coasting) after engine shutdown, they can't sustain
soaring flight by utilizing any atmosphere generated form of lift to improve
performance beyond their limited glide ratios, so their flights can't be
technically considered "Soaring Performances".

[Bob]

Wouldn't that make the STS (a self launch glider) the holder of the altitude record?

Bob

[plasticguy]

"Bob" > wrote in message
om...
> Wouldn't that make the STS (a self launch glider) the holder of the
altitude record?
>
> Bob

No, but it might mean that a P-38 Lightning is a motorglider since it has
been wave soared with both engines caged
for a couple hours.

Scott.

[John Jones]

At 12:36 04 June 2004, Plasticguy wrote:
>
>'Bob' wrote in message
om...
>> Wouldn't that make the STS (a self launch glider)
>>the holder of the
>altitude record?
>>
>> Bob
>
>No, but it might mean that a P-38 Lightning is a motorglider
>since it has
>been wave soared with both engines caged
>for a couple hours.
>
>Scott.
>
>
>

The Burt Rutan SpaceShip One looks very light weight,
so I would assume it has some modest glide performance...albeit
likely at a higher speed than what we are used to.

Bet if it ran into mountain wave on the way back down
from space, it could climb in the wave. That would
meet the definition of glider then.

[Arbr64]

Correct, that P-38 was capable, under strong wave conditions, of a "Soaring
Performance".
It could have tried for an altitude record if, after engine shutdown, it
gained at least 5000m in wave AND exceeded the previous altitude record.

"plasticguy" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Wouldn't that make the STS (a self launch glider) the holder of the
> altitude record?
> >
> > Bob
>
> No, but it might mean that a P-38 Lightning is a motorglider since it has
> been wave soared with both engines caged
> for a couple hours.
>
> Scott.
>
>

[Arbr64]

> The Burt Rutan SpaceShip One looks very light weight,
> so I would assume it has some modest glide performance...albeit
> likely at a higher speed than what we are used to.
>
> Bet if it ran into mountain wave on the way back down
> from space, it could climb in the wave. That would
> meet the definition of glider then.

The SS1s drawback for a soaring performance is high Wing Loading and very
low aspec-ratio wings.
This means high stall speed and high sink rates, both non-conducive to
significant soaring performances.

The average sink rate according to their public data is 2500ft/min, and
stall speed with one person on board and no fuel was 70kts.

[Mark James Boyd]

I vaguely recollect that altitude records require some fairly
healthy altitude gain to be valid in soaring. I believe this
applies to absolute altitude as well. IIRC one must
have a gain of diamond altitude to claim a absolute altitude
world record. I'm not certain about state records, but
may have read somewhere that silver gain is
required for state/national absolute altitude records...

AHA...Virginia requires:

3.0 Minimum Performance : Absolute Altitude records must include
an altitude gain of at least 3,281 feet.

Somebody else can look up the World Record requirement ;)


http://www.brss.net/Rules.htm

In article >,
Arbr64 > wrote:
>
>> The Burt Rutan SpaceShip One looks very light weight,
>> so I would assume it has some modest glide performance...albeit
>> likely at a higher speed than what we are used to.
>>
>> Bet if it ran into mountain wave on the way back down
>> from space, it could climb in the wave. That would
>> meet the definition of glider then.
>
>The SS1s drawback for a soaring performance is high Wing Loading and very
>low aspec-ratio wings.
>This means high stall speed and high sink rates, both non-conducive to
>significant soaring performances.
>
>The average sink rate according to their public data is 2500ft/min, and
>stall speed with one person on board and no fuel was 70kts.
>
>
>


--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Arbr64]

Already did, read my previous posting. It's 5000m, around 16000ft.

> AHA...Virginia requires:
>
> 3.0 Minimum Performance : Absolute Altitude records must include
> an altitude gain of at least 3,281 feet.
>
> Somebody else can look up the World Record requirement ;)

[Tim Ward]

"Arbr64" > wrote in message
. com...
> Already did, read my previous posting. It's 5000m, around 16000ft.
>
> > AHA...Virginia requires:
> >
> > 3.0 Minimum Performance : Absolute Altitude records must include
> > an altitude gain of at least 3,281 feet.
> >
> > Somebody else can look up the World Record requirement ;)
>
>
I'm betting Spaceship1 will climb at least 3281 feet after MECO.

Tim Ward

[Arbr64]

The space shuttle flies (orbits) above 328,000ft, and thus, outside of the
earth's atmosphere.
The record within the atmosphere belongs to the X-15 since 1962 at
314,000ft.

"Bob" > wrote in message
om...
> Wouldn't that make the STS (a self launch glider) the holder of the
altitude record?
>
> Bob

[Bob Mowry]

(Janus2k) wrote in message >...
> Written by Bob Mowry, whom I suspect could be lurking here! Congrats!!!!!!!
> Made my day.

Mark,

Thanks for the post here. My magazine just arrived on Saturday (I
didn't know they were going to publish my letter until I saw it).

I hope Bruce has a good sense of humor :)

-bob

[Bruce Hoult]

In article >,
"Arbr64" > wrote:

> The average sink rate according to their public data is 2500ft/min, and
> stall speed with one person on board and no fuel was 70kts.

I'm sure that sink rate (which is comparable to many small helicopters)
is with the aircraft and/or pilot in a "let's get down and land *now"
mode.


But of course it's not a sailplane! All the same I'm sure as hell going
to head for Mojave to see this Historic flight.

It sees private vehicles get to about the same point as NASA was in 1961
with Alan Shepard's and Gus Grissom's Mercury flights, and very much the
same place the USAF was with the X15 high flights from 1963 to 1968.

The capabilities are only about the same as those government programs in
the 1960's, but the cost and resuability are far better.

I now know that I'll be possible for regular people like us to get into
space within my lifetime (I'm 41). I might if I'm lucky even get to do
it this decade. If you'd asked me even five years ago I wouldn't have
been anywhere near as positive.

Way to go, Scaled!

-- Bruce