Rocket Racing League First Exhibition Race August 1st and August 2nd, 2008

[Larry Dighera]

Pylon racing and now Rocket Racing!


http://www.rocketracingleague.com/
Rocket Racing League
he 21st century's newest and greatest sport - racing rocket-
powered aircraft

The Rocket Racing League® is an aerospace sports and entertainment
organization that combines the competition of racing with the
excitement of rocketry. The RRL was established by X-Prize founder
Peter Diamandis and two-time Indianapolis 500 champion team
partner Granger Whitelaw to advance the technology and increase
public awareness of space travel. The NASCAR-style racing league
features rocket-powered aircraft that will be flown by top pilots
through a 'three-dimensional track way' at venues throughout the
world. With millions of fans who enjoy racing and air shows, and
an even wider audience enthralled with humanity's next step into
space, rocket racing is destined to become the future of racing!

Video:
http://www.rocketracingleague.com/todayshowclip.html
http://www.rocketracingleague.com/foxnewsclip.html



http://www.rocketracingleague.com/media/press_releases/2008_4_14_oshkosh.html
Rocket Racing League® Announces First Exhibition Race, Upcoming
Race Schedule, Key Partnership and Acquisition

New Entertainment Sports League to Stage First Exhibition Race at
EAA AirVenture in Oshkosh August 1st and August 2nd

Armadillo Aerospace to provide LOX Engine for Rocket Racer

Rocket Racing Composite Announces Acquisition of Velocity Aircraft

NEW YORK - April 14, 2008 )-The Rocket Racing League® (RRL TM),
the new entertainment sports league that combines the exhilaration
of racing with the power of rocket engines, today announced that
the First Exhibition Race of the Rocket Racing League® will take
place on August 1st and August 2nd at EAA AirVenture in Oshkosh,
WI. In addition to announcing the dates of the First Exhibition
Races, the Rocket Racing League® also announced the remaining
series of exhibition races for the rest of 2008, the acquisition
of Velocity Aircraft by Rocket Racing Composites Corp., and
announced that Armadillo Aerospace will manufacture liquid oxygen
(LOX) engines for the Rocket Racing League® .

First Exhibition Race
On August 1st and August 2nd, the first Exhibition Race of the
Rocket Racing League® will be held at EAA AirVenture in Oshkosh,
WI, the largest air show in the world. For the first time ever,
two Rocket Racers will compete head-to-head in a demonstration
race in the raceway in the sky. The Rocket Racer pilots will view
the "raceway in the sky" via in-panel and 3D helmet displays and
the 700,000 people in attendance at EAA AirVenture will witness
the racing action live on multiple large projection screens.

"The first Exhibition Race of the Rocket Racer is an important
milestone in the progression of the Rocket Racing League® ," said
Granger Whitelaw, Chief Executive Officer of the Rocket Racing
League® . "We look forward to sharing the experience and thrill of
rocket racing with the public."

Exhibition Race Schedule

Following the first Exhibition Race at EAA AirVenture, the RRL
will hold exhibition races at venues around the country,
including:

* Reno National Championship Air Races (Reno, NV) - September
10-14
* X Prize Cup (Las Cruces, NM) - TBD 2008
* Aviation Nation, Nellis AFB, (Las Vegas, NV) - November 8-9

News:
http://www.rocketracingleague.com/press-room_press-releases.html

[Rich S.[_1_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Pylon racing and now Rocket Racing!

I'm sure there will now appear those who choose to sit on the sidelines and
mock those who are trying something new. It is easier and less risky to be a
critic instead of a playwright.

I'm looking forward to seeing it. The Red Bull events are very entertaining.

Rich S.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 14:19:07 -0700, "Rich S." >
wrote:

> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Pylon racing and now Rocket Racing!
>
> I'm sure there will now appear those who choose to sit on the sidelines and
> mock those who are trying something new. It is easier and less risky to be a
> critic instead of a playwright.

Wouldn't want to disappoint you, Rich! :-)

> I'm looking forward to seeing it. The Red Bull events are very entertaining.

Certainly. But there's a lot of differences between Red Bull and the RRL. For
instance, the RRL pilots follow instructions from an autopilot in order to
follow an invisible course. If they vary from the course, only the spectators
following the "video game" on the big-screen TVs will know. For Red Bull, a
"Cut Pylon" is not only a literal event, it's totally obvious to every
spectator! :-)

I don't argue that the RRL isn't *spectacle*. But so was "jet truck" racing at
Oshkosh.

The race at Oshkosh is listed as an 'Exhibition'...with no definition of what
that means. I'm guessing it means two or three airplanes (probably including
XCOR's Rocket EZ) zipping around until their fuel runs out, no pit stops, and
limited video screens.

No doubt folks will enjoy the spectacle. But...consider whether you'll ever be
willing to pay good money *just* to see a rocket race. I enjoyed seeing the
Rocket EZ fly. But how many people would pay $100 just to watch it fly again?
If a full-up RRL race would displace, say, 100 homebuilts from show-center
Oshkosh parking to allow room for their video screens, pit areas, and luxury
boxes for VIP guests...would it be worth it?

Here's an interesting bit of information. As of 1 January 2008, there were two
Velocities registered to the RRL (N246RR and N216MR). Both were licensed as
Experimental Amateur-Built, and still are in that category today.

The RRL could have just as easily licensed them as Experimental Racing.
*Somebody* had to sign an affidavit stating that these aircraft were constructed
for education or recreation.

Keep that in mind the next time the kit airplane companies cry about the FAA
tightening up the Experimental Amateur-Built rules....

Ron Wanttaja

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:27:51 -0700, Ron Wanttaja >
wrote:


> Here's an interesting bit of information. As of 1 January 2008, there were two
> Velocities registered to the RRL (N246RR and N216MR). Both were licensed as
> Experimental Amateur-Built, and still are in that category today.

Looks like one of them (N216MR) might be a Velocity purchased from a previous
builder. The other was built by Velocity and lists a Lycoming, so it may be a
conversion as well.

But, obviously, the next question arises: Have these Experimental Amateur-Built
aircraft completed their 40 hours since major alterations (conversion to rocket
power)? With a fifteen-minute flight time per fuel load, that's 160 flights.
If you consider that even that many flights would constitute less than 15 hours
with the motor running.....

So...is RRL going to do a hurried transfer of these airplanes to some other
Experimental category, or is some of their time for flying off their
restrictions going to in front of 500,000 people at Oshkosh?

Ron Wanttaja

[DABEAR]

On Jun 29, 10:34*am, Ron Wanttaja > wrote:

> So...is RRL going to do a hurried transfer of these airplanes to some other
> Experimental category, or is some of their time for flying off their
> restrictions going to in front of 500,000 people at Oshkosh?
>
> Ron Wanttaja

Saw one in ground test at Mojave many months ago so its aerial work
should be well underway. The progress of the second aircraft will be
an issue.

Their two top pilots including Rick Searfoss are tagged with the
demonstration flights based on a previous press release.

Reno is a dangerous location to fly. Folks may have to get up early
to witness any flying there due to the Sierra Wave factor. Mornings
are usually calm.

They'll be trying to put gliders down on fixed runways when those
aircraft need something more in the way of a dry lake. Unless they
found a way to put power on for landing, they're at the whim of
turbulence and winds in the area, and a few years back (2002), Brent
Hisey got pushed off the runway centerline during a landing attempt
and nearly got himself killed in the North American P-51D Mustang
"Miss America." They aircraft was technically "destroyed," yet Hisey
managed to rebuild her and by the following year, won the Silver at
Stead. Two miracles in one year from that guy.

If the idea is to turn those aircraft around within one hour for the
racing they have planned, and if their designs accomodate such a slow
"Pit Stop" feature, then they should be able to accumulate enough
hours if their are no mishaps during the flight test and performance
period.

However, those craft will need the most experienced pilots in the
World because in my opinion, what they're planning to do in the
landing phase without an open area like a Dry Lake in a Desert Region
(known for unpredictable dust devils [tore an International Formula
One air racer apart in flight killing the pilot], tremendous heat,
severe crosswinds, headwinds and tailwinds, dangerous updrafts and
downdrafts and Wave-produced turbulence) could prove to be the most
dangerous issue of their flights; moreso than the climb to altitude
under full power.

[Harry K]

On Jun 28, 11:06*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> Pylon racing and now Rocket Racing!
>
> * *http://www.rocketracingleague.com/
> * * Rocket Racing League
> * * he 21st century's newest and greatest sport - racing rocket-
> * * powered aircraft
>

OK. I am a bit out of date but my understanding is that it is timed
circuits, not 2 or more in the air at the same time. Not what I
consider 'racing'.

Further, reading between the lines of the press release. You won't see
the planes flying except on a video screen.

If either of them, especially the 'screen' bit is correct, color me
very bored.

Harry K

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 05:50:48 -0700 (PDT), DABEAR >
wrote:

> If the idea is to turn those aircraft around within one hour for the
> racing they have planned, and if their designs accomodate such a slow
> "Pit Stop" feature, then they should be able to accumulate enough
> hours if their are no mishaps during the flight test and performance
> period.

Got an email that makes me believe they've solved many of the "pit stop" issues,
at least. They're not as fast as NASCAR, but they're anticipated to be
considerably shorter than the 15-minute estimate I had. Still, their easiest
solution to the "flying off the test period time" issue would be a transition to
another category where the FSDO doesn't require the traditional Ex-AB flyoff
period.

I guess unlimited air racing survives with just one or two events per year, so
the RRL can probably get by with the same. Hard for the owners to break even
that way, though....

Ron Wanttaja

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 07:06:27 -0700 (PDT), Harry K
> wrote in
>:

>On Jun 28, 11:06*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> Pylon racing and now Rocket Racing!
>>
>> * *http://www.rocketracingleague.com/
>> * * Rocket Racing League
>> * * he 21st century's newest and greatest sport - racing rocket-
>> * * powered aircraft
>>
>
>OK. I am a bit out of date but my understanding is that it is timed
>circuits, not 2 or more in the air at the same time. Not what I
>consider 'racing'.

Where did you get that idea?

>
>Further, reading between the lines of the press release. You won't see
>the planes flying except on a video screen.

I believe that is incorrect also.

>
>If either of them, especially the 'screen' bit is correct, color me
>very bored.
>
>Harry K

View this video, and then tell me what you believe is correct:
http://www.rocketracingleague.com/foxnewsclip.html

[Dan[_12_]]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 05:50:48 -0700 (PDT), DABEAR >
> wrote:
>
>> If the idea is to turn those aircraft around within one hour for the
>> racing they have planned, and if their designs accomodate such a slow
>> "Pit Stop" feature, then they should be able to accumulate enough
>> hours if their are no mishaps during the flight test and performance
>> period.
>
> Got an email that makes me believe they've solved many of the "pit stop" issues,
> at least. They're not as fast as NASCAR, but they're anticipated to be
> considerably shorter than the 15-minute estimate I had. Still, their easiest
> solution to the "flying off the test period time" issue would be a transition to
> another category where the FSDO doesn't require the traditional Ex-AB flyoff
> period.
>
> I guess unlimited air racing survives with just one or two events per year, so
> the RRL can probably get by with the same. Hard for the owners to break even
> that way, though....
>
> Ron Wanttaja

I wonder if they could race before the magic 40 hours if they based
the aircraft at Reno and flew the hours there.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Ron Wanttaja says...
>
>On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:27:51 -0700, Ron Wanttaja >
>wrote:
>
>
>>Here's an interesting bit of information. As of 1 January 2008, there were two
>> Velocities registered to the RRL (N246RR and N216MR). Both were licensed as
>> Experimental Amateur-Built, and still are in that category today.
>
>Looks like one of them (N216MR) might be a Velocity purchased from a previous
>builder. The other was built by Velocity and lists a Lycoming, so it may be a
>conversion as well.
>
>But, obviously, the next question arises: Have these Experimental Amateur-Built
>aircraft completed their 40 hours since major alterations (conversion to rocket
>power)? With a fifteen-minute flight time per fuel load, that's 160 flights.
>If you consider that even that many flights would constitute less than 15 hours
>with the motor running.....
>
>So...is RRL going to do a hurried transfer of these airplanes to some other
>Experimental category, or is some of their time for flying off their
>restrictions going to in front of 500,000 people at Oshkosh?

capt zoom will fly the 40hrs off in 4 one hour flights and call anyone a liar
and threaten to sue anyone who disputes his claims. LOL!!! Because as zoom once
told me if I wrote it I did it...

Chuck S RAH 14/1 ret.

P.S. I notice zoomy wasn't mentioned as one of the pilots.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 07:06:27 -0700 (PDT), Harry K >
wrote:

> OK. I am a bit out of date but my understanding is that it is timed
> circuits, not 2 or more in the air at the same time. Not what I
> consider 'racing'.

No, from what I understand, it's head-to-head. However, the rockets burn
through fuel quickly...I've heard that less than half of a typical 15-minute
flight will be under power. The RRL is doing pit stops, but of course a plane
just out of the pits will be a lot slower and have less acceleration than those
already aloft (due to still carrying a heavy fuel load).

> Further, reading between the lines of the press release. You won't see
> the planes flying except on a video screen.

You won't see the *course* any way than on a video screen. Unlike Red Bull and
Reno, there are no physical pylons. The pilots apparently follow their flight
directors, which are programmed with the route. If you want to see how they're
doing, you have to view the information on the video screens.

You'll see the planes flying, but I've heard that most the flying will occur at
1,000 feet or above (one guy told me 5,000 feet!). Since the majority of each
flight is power-off, they probably need the altitude to stretch their endurance.

The most interesting aspect will probably be the pit stops...the current record
for a rocket-powered-airplane pit stop is something like two hours! They've
supposedly reduced that by more than an order of magnitude. However, as most
airports don't have grandstands, you probably won't be able to watch the action
in the pits directly since the people in front will block everyone else's view.
Hence, you'll probably end up watching the pit stops on the video monitors as
well.

It *does* look like the RRL was considering grandstands, at least initially.
Check out their proximity to the runway on this promotional artwork on the RRL
web page:

http://www.rocketracingleague.com/press_images/runwaybig.jpg

Ten rocket planes going by, a half a wingspan away? I don't think they even
MAKE Excedrin tablets that large... :-)

Ron Wanttaja

[Harry K]

On Jun 30, 7:01*pm, Ron Wanttaja > wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 07:06:27 -0700 (PDT), Harry K >
> wrote:
>
> > OK. *I am a bit out of date but my understanding is that it is timed
> > circuits, not 2 or more in the air at the same time. *Not what I
> > consider 'racing'.
>
> No, from what I understand, it's head-to-head. *However, the rockets burn
> through fuel quickly...I've heard that less than half of a typical 15-minute
> flight will be under power. *The RRL is doing pit stops, but of course a plane
> just out of the pits will be a lot slower and have less acceleration than those
> already aloft (due to still carrying a heavy fuel load). *
>
> > Further, reading between the lines of the press release. You won't see
> > the planes flying except on a video screen.
>
> You won't see the *course* any way than on a video screen. *Unlike Red Bull and
> Reno, there are no physical pylons. *The pilots apparently follow their flight
> directors, which are programmed with the route. *If you want to see how they're
> doing, you have to view the information on the video screens.
>
> You'll see the planes flying, but I've heard that most the flying will occur at
> 1,000 feet or above (one guy told me 5,000 feet!). *Since the majority of each
> flight is power-off, they probably need the altitude to stretch their endurance.
>
> The most interesting aspect will probably be the pit stops...the current record
> for a rocket-powered-airplane pit stop is something like two hours! *They've
> supposedly reduced that by more than an order of magnitude. *However, as most
> airports don't have grandstands, you probably won't be able to watch the action
> in the pits directly since the people in front will block everyone else's view.
> Hence, you'll probably end up watching the pit stops on the video monitors as
> well.
>
> It *does* look like the RRL was considering grandstands, at least initially.
> Check out their proximity to the runway on this promotional artwork on the RRL
> web page:
>
> http://www.rocketracingleague.com/press_images/runwaybig.jpg
>
> Ten rocket planes going by, a half a wingspan away? *I don't think they even
> MAKE Excedrin tablets that large... :-)
>
> Ron Wanttaja

Okay. Still skeptical of it turning into much of a spectator sport.

Harry K

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:03:39 -0700 (PDT), Harry K >
wrote:

> Okay. Still skeptical of it turning into much of a spectator sport.

I don't think they'll have trouble getting attendees for the first couple of
races. The question is, how many people will be interested in spending money to
see it a SECOND (and third, and fourth...) time.

It could probably survive forever as one of the acts at places like Oshkosh and
Reno, but they're apparently trying to make it a stand-alone attraction like the
Red Bull air races. IMHO, I think the Red Bull events, with their visible
course markers (where a "cut pylon" is REALLY a cut pylon) and the low-level
aerobatics is a much more visceral experience for the average spectator.

Sure, folks will initially come to see the rockets. Once that interest is
sated, though, the question is whether the action itself is exciting enough to
lure them to buy a $50-$100 ticket just to watch the rockets race again the next
time they come to town.

Ron Wanttaja

[who cares?]

In article >, Ron Wanttaja > wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:03:39 -0700 (PDT), Harry K >
>wrote:
>
>> Okay. Still skeptical of it turning into much of a spectator sport.
>
>I don't think they'll have trouble getting attendees for the first couple of
>races. The question is, how many people will be interested in spending money
> to
>see it a SECOND (and third, and fourth...) time.
>
>It could probably survive forever as one of the acts at places like Oshkosh and
>Reno, but they're apparently trying to make it a stand-alone attraction like
> the
>Red Bull air races. IMHO, I think the Red Bull events, with their visible
>course markers (where a "cut pylon" is REALLY a cut pylon) and the low-level
>aerobatics is a much more visceral experience for the average spectator.
>
>Sure, folks will initially come to see the rockets. Once that interest is
>sated, though, the question is whether the action itself is exciting enough to
>lure them to buy a $50-$100 ticket just to watch the rockets race again the
> next
>time they come to town.
>
>Ron Wanttaja


It would seem to me that the way for them to make money is television. Since
you have to watch a screen to see whats going on, why not put it on
everybody's screen and make your money selling advertising?

Proper use of cenematic technique could make it far more exciting in people's
living rooms than it would be to view the action on site.

[Harry K]

On Jul 1, 12:37*am, Ron Wanttaja > wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:03:39 -0700 (PDT), Harry K >
> wrote:
>
> > Okay. *Still skeptical of it turning into much of a spectator sport.
>
> I don't think they'll have trouble getting attendees for the first couple of
> races. *The question is, how many people will be interested in spending money to
> see it a SECOND (and third, and fourth...) time. *
>
> It could probably survive forever as one of the acts at places like Oshkosh and
> Reno, but they're apparently trying to make it a stand-alone attraction like the
> Red Bull air races. *IMHO, I think the Red Bull events, with their visible
> course markers (where a "cut pylon" is REALLY a cut pylon) and the low-level
> aerobatics is a much more visceral experience for the average spectator.
>
> Sure, folks will initially come to see the rockets. *Once that interest is
> sated, though, the question is whether the action itself is exciting enough to
> lure them to buy a $50-$100 ticket just to watch the rockets race again the next
> time they come to town.
>
> Ron Wanttaja

One of the big problems is teh pit stop plus short flying time. Even
if they get it down to 15 minutes, they have each plane on the ground
for as long, or longer, than they ar flying. I can see the announcers
hyping the pit stops..."looks like Jim Campbell is going to set a new
course record folks, he is almost ready to leave the pits in under....
13.56!!"

With two planes going head to head in the exhibition it will be 15
minutes flying and 15 minutes for the crowd to make their own pit
stops for muchies and p calls. If that is the way it goes, I will bet
the at least half the crowd will find something better to do after the
first pit.

Harry K

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 07:33:47 -0700 (PDT), Harry K >
wrote:

> One of the big problems is teh pit stop plus short flying time. Even
> if they get it down to 15 minutes, they have each plane on the ground
> for as long, or longer, than they ar flying. I can see the announcers
> hyping the pit stops..."looks like Jim Campbell is going to set a new
> course record folks, he is almost ready to leave the pits in under....
> 13.56!!"
>
> With two planes going head to head in the exhibition it will be 15
> minutes flying and 15 minutes for the crowd to make their own pit
> stops for muchies and p calls. If that is the way it goes, I will bet
> the at least half the crowd will find something better to do after the
> first pit.

Actually, I got email the other day that says the RRL will be able to better the
15 minutes I'd previously guessed. If what I hear is right, I figure five
minutes might be doable. However, since the planes can't taxi under their own
power, that time has to include towing them back to the takeoff point.

Traffic control might be an issue. The planes are practically identical in
design. If they take off at about the same time, they are likely to run out of
fuel at about the same time, too. How about four planes maneuvering for
simultaneous deadstick landings?

The only solution is to stagger the takeoffs by several minutes, to ensure there
are planes that keep flying when others pit and the conflicts for runway space
don't happen. But then you've lost the head-to-head racing aspect...a Rocket
Racer with half its fuel burned will out-accelerate a plane that still has most
of its takeoff load. You get lots of fast passes, but not the breathtaking
duels of unlimited racing.

I think the question you have to ask yourself is, "Will people find the *style*
of racing interesting if they were prop-powered planes, instead?" The short
flights, the relatively high flying, the long powerless glides, the "virtual"
course that a spectator has to watch a video monitor to see, etc. If the answer
is "no," then rocket racing will be successful until the novelty of seeing
rocket planes glide around wears off.

Ron Wanttaja

[BobR]

On Jul 1, 10:13*am, Ron Wanttaja > wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 07:33:47 -0700 (PDT), Harry K >
> wrote:
>
> > One of the big problems is teh pit stop plus short flying time. *Even
> > if they get it down to 15 minutes, they have each plane on the ground
> > for as long, or longer, than they ar flying. *I can see the announcers
> > hyping the pit stops..."looks like Jim Campbell is going to set a new
> > course record folks, he is almost ready to leave the pits in under....
> > 13.56!!"
>
> > With two planes going head to head in the exhibition it will be 15
> > minutes flying and 15 minutes for the crowd to make their own pit
> > stops for muchies and p calls. *If that is the way it goes, I will bet
> > the at least half the crowd will find something better to do after the
> > first pit.
>
> Actually, I got email the other day that says the RRL will be able to better the
> 15 minutes I'd previously guessed. *If what I hear is right, I figure five
> minutes might be doable. *However, since the planes can't taxi under their own
> power, that time has to include towing them back to the takeoff point.
>
> Traffic control might be an issue. *The planes are practically identical in
> design. *If they take off at about the same time, they are likely to run out of
> fuel at about the same time, too. *How about four planes maneuvering for
> simultaneous deadstick landings?
>
> The only solution is to stagger the takeoffs by several minutes, to ensure there
> are planes that keep flying when others pit and the conflicts for runway space
> don't happen. *But then you've lost the head-to-head racing aspect...a Rocket
> Racer with half its fuel burned will out-accelerate a plane that still has most
> of its takeoff load. *You get lots of fast passes, but not the breathtaking
> duels of unlimited racing. *
>
> I think the question you have to ask yourself is, "Will people find the *style*
> of racing interesting if they were prop-powered planes, instead?" *The short
> flights, the relatively high flying, the long powerless glides, the "virtual"
> course that a spectator has to watch a video monitor to see, etc. *If the answer
> is "no," then rocket racing will be successful until the novelty of seeing
> rocket planes glide around wears off.
>
> Ron Wanttaja

Not sure why everyone keeps making the comment about dead stick
landings. Rutan demonstrated the rocket plane at Oshkosh a couple of
years back with the full ability to start, stop, and restart the
engines.

[Charlie[_2_]]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:27:51 -0700, Ron Wanttaja >
> wrote:
>
>
>> Here's an interesting bit of information. As of 1 January 2008, there were two
>> Velocities registered to the RRL (N246RR and N216MR). Both were licensed as
>> Experimental Amateur-Built, and still are in that category today.
>
> Looks like one of them (N216MR) might be a Velocity purchased from a previous
> builder. The other was built by Velocity and lists a Lycoming, so it may be a
> conversion as well.
>
> But, obviously, the next question arises: Have these Experimental Amateur-Built
> aircraft completed their 40 hours since major alterations (conversion to rocket
> power)? With a fifteen-minute flight time per fuel load, that's 160 flights.
> If you consider that even that many flights would constitute less than 15 hours
> with the motor running.....
>
> So...is RRL going to do a hurried transfer of these airplanes to some other
> Experimental category, or is some of their time for flying off their
> restrictions going to in front of 500,000 people at Oshkosh?
>
> Ron Wanttaja
Hmmm...

Must be different rules in other parts of the country, or maybe time
flows at a different rate.

Down here in the backwater states, you only need 5 hours test time after
a major alteration.

Charlie
Slobovia Outernational

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 14:55:40 -0700 (PDT), BobR > wrote:

> Not sure why everyone keeps making the comment about dead stick
> landings. Rutan demonstrated the rocket plane at Oshkosh a couple of
> years back with the full ability to start, stop, and restart the
> engines.

When Rutan flew, he was the only plane up there. When he hit the "go" button,
all he was expected to do was fly around the airport at least once, then land.
He could keep some fuel back in case he had to go around, or "blip" the rocket
to correct for an undershoot.

In contrast, of course, the RRL pilots will be busy flying the invisible course
and keeping from running into up to nine other rocket planes. It's a little
different problem....

According to the RRL web page, they're going to stagger the takeoffs, so that
should reduce the chances for simultaneous deadsticks. However, it's going to be
interesting if (for instance) a landing gear collapses and the plane stops on
the runway. I'm sure they'll have a backup runway, but the guys aloft may have
to scramble a bit. Trouble is, unless there's a second backup runway, racing
will have to stop until they get the primary cleared.

I surfed around the RRL web page, and found some technical data that I hadn't
noticed the last time I checked, several months back.

"...1,500 pound thrust rocket engine burning liquid oxygen (LOX) and kerosene...
Each X-Racer will be a single-pilot vehicle with an empty weight of roughly
1,000 lbs and a propellant weight of 1,000 lbs..."

Lox/Kerosene has a Specific Impulse of about 300 seconds, so this comes out to
200 seconds of engine run time (web page says 4 minutes of intermittent powered
flight, so that ties in). Ten minutes of glide time, Pit times are listed as
5-10 minutes. So that makes less than four minutes of powered flight per
aircraft every twenty to twenty-five minutes.

"...the Rocket Racing League will feature multiple races pitting up to 10 Rocket
Racers going head to head in a 4-lap, multiple elimination heat format on a
5-mile "Formula One"-like closed circuit raceway in the sky."

It's a twenty-mile course (five miles around, four laps). The planes should be
able to complete the course WITHOUT a pit stop...the plane has to average just
80 MPH during that 15-minute flight.

However, the web page says they have to pit after "3-4 laps." They may be
requiring some sort of fuel reserve. But it seems weird to plan for a 5-10
minute pit stop when the plane could practically *coast* around the course for
that last lap. My guess is that the "pit stops" are more to get planes ready
quickly for the next heat before the spectators wander away.

Still didn't' find anything on the web page about flight altitudes. It might be
something they leave up to the teams to decide...either go up high and coast
downhill at high speeds, or stay low and run the engine in short blips.

Ron Wanttaja

[[email protected]]

On Jun 30, 6:50�am, DABEAR > wrote:
> On Jun 29, 10:34�am, Ron Wanttaja > wrote:
>
> > So...is RRL going to do a hurried transfer of these airplanes to some other
> > Experimental category, or is some of their time for flying off their
> > restrictions going to in front of 500,000 people at Oshkosh?
>
> > Ron Wanttaja
>
> Saw one in ground test at Mojave many months ago so its aerial work
> should be well underway. �The progress of the second aircraft will be
> an issue.
>
> Their two top pilots including Rick Searfoss are tagged with the
> demonstration flights based on a previous press release.
>
> Reno is a dangerous location to fly. �Folks may have to get up early
> to witness any flying there due to the Sierra Wave factor. �Mornings
> are usually calm.
>
> They'll be trying to put gliders down on fixed runways when those
> aircraft need something more in the way of a dry lake. �Unless they
> found a way to put power on for landing, they're at the whim of
> turbulence and winds in the area, and a few years back (2002), Brent
> Hisey got pushed off the runway centerline during a landing attempt
> and nearly got himself killed in the North American P-51D Mustang
> "Miss America." �They aircraft was technically "destroyed," yet Hisey
> managed to rebuild her and by the following year, won the Silver at
> Stead. �Two miracles in one year from that guy.
>
> If the idea is to turn those aircraft around within one hour for the
> racing they have planned, and if their designs accomodate such a slow
> "Pit Stop" feature, then they should be able to accumulate enough
> hours if their are no mishaps during the flight test and performance
> period.
>
> However, those craft will need the most experienced pilots in the
> World because in my opinion, what they're planning to do in the
> landing phase without an open area like a Dry Lake in a Desert Region
> (known for unpredictable dust devils [tore an International Formula
> One air racer apart in flight killing the pilot], tremendous heat,
> severe crosswinds, headwinds and tailwinds, dangerous updrafts and
> downdrafts and Wave-produced turbulence) could prove to be the most
> dangerous issue of their flights; moreso than the climb to altitude
> under full power.

i would love to know just what Stead Field you have been going to over
the last years. You are certainly not describing the one I know.

[Vaughn Simon]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 07:06:27 -0700 (PDT), Harry K >
> wrote:
>
> ... of course a plane
> just out of the pits will be a lot slower and have less acceleration than
> those
> already aloft (due to still carrying a heavy fuel load).

Reduced acceleration yes, but a heavier aircraft has a faster best L/D, (all
else being equal) which is why competition gliders often fly with water ballast.

If you take the time to think about it, the optimum Fuel Consumption vs Gross
Weight vs Altitude vs Speed vs Flight Duration vs Range strategy for these birds
gets more and more complicated.

Vaughn

[Rich S.[_1_]]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
>
> Still didn't' find anything on the web page about flight altitudes. It
> might be
> something they leave up to the teams to decide...either go up high and
> coast
> downhill at high speeds, or stay low and run the engine in short blips.

Something I saw indicated the course would be 3-D. They would have "gates"
with upper, lower, left and right boundaries. So, they would have to climb,
dive, left and right maneuvers. Only the vectors between the gates would be
left up to the pilots, as well as the use of power.

The racers wouldn't be aiming for the same gate. The computer would have
gates for each racer, perhaps laid out side-by-side (with spacing for
safety), so the planes would appear to be racing but in reality flying
parallel courses.

I think that was on a TV spot or perhaps an animated internet movie clip.

Rich S.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 11:44:03 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"
> wrote:

> > ... of course a plane
> > just out of the pits will be a lot slower and have less acceleration than
> > those already aloft (due to still carrying a heavy fuel load).
>
> Reduced acceleration yes, but a heavier aircraft has a faster best L/D, (all
> else being equal) which is why competition gliders often fly with water ballast.

>
> If you take the time to think about it, the optimum Fuel Consumption vs Gross
> Weight vs Altitude vs Speed vs Flight Duration vs Range strategy for these birds
> gets more and more complicated.

You're right, of course. As an engineer, it's a problem that really tickles my
fancy.

However, we're right back to considering how interesting the races will be
(e.g., how willing they are to pay for another) to the average spectator. A
spectator at a NASCAR race or at Reno can easily judge how their favorite racer
is doing...e.g., if he's passing a lot of other vehicles, he's probably a
front-runner.

Not the case with the RRL. For one thing, the planes stagger their
takeoffs...they don't start at the same time. So unless the course length
differs for each aircraft (which is a really, REALLY thorny problem in fuel
planning), the order they cross the "finish line" has nothing to do with their
standings.

Plus, EVERY plane will be getting passed by the other planes in the first half
of their flight, and passing more and more of the other planes as their tanks go
dry and their acceleration increases (a RRL plane has about a 0.75G capability
at takeoff, but is able to accelerate at 1.5Gs just prior to running out of
fuel).

I'm sure the NASCAR and Reno events are complicated enough that to truly
understand how each competitor is doing, the spectator must consult the
scoreboard. But if a guy is a Rare Bear fan, he can probably tell pretty well
how the plane is doing just by watching it.

Not so in the RRL. It doesn't mean a thing if their favorite is passing other
racers; it just means the aircraft has burned more fuel. It doesn't mean a
thing if a racer crosses the finish line in front of others; it may have taken
off minutes before they did. So the spectator's eyes gravitate towards the
video monitors. By the end of the day, he'll probably come to the conclusion
that he could have followed the race better from his computer at home.

The discussion on this thread started when Harry asked if the racers were just
racing against the clock. I corrected him... but the more I think about it, the
more I think he had it right. The rockets are aloft at the same time, but each
is racing against an individual clock.

Ron Wanttaja

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
Ron Wanttaja > wrote:

> On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 11:44:03 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"
> > wrote:
>
> > > ... of course a plane
> > > just out of the pits will be a lot slower and have less acceleration than
> > > those already aloft (due to still carrying a heavy fuel load).
> >
> > Reduced acceleration yes, but a heavier aircraft has a faster best L/D,
> > (all
> > else being equal) which is why competition gliders often fly with water
> > ballast.
>
> >
> > If you take the time to think about it, the optimum Fuel Consumption vs
> > Gross
> > Weight vs Altitude vs Speed vs Flight Duration vs Range strategy for these
> > birds
> > gets more and more complicated.
>
> You're right, of course. As an engineer, it's a problem that really tickles
> my
> fancy.
>
> However, we're right back to considering how interesting the races will be
> (e.g., how willing they are to pay for another) to the average spectator. A
> spectator at a NASCAR race or at Reno can easily judge how their favorite
> racer
> is doing...e.g., if he's passing a lot of other vehicles, he's probably a
> front-runner.
>
> Not the case with the RRL. For one thing, the planes stagger their
> takeoffs...they don't start at the same time. So unless the course length
> differs for each aircraft (which is a really, REALLY thorny problem in fuel
> planning), the order they cross the "finish line" has nothing to do with
> their
> standings.
>
> Plus, EVERY plane will be getting passed by the other planes in the first
> half
> of their flight, and passing more and more of the other planes as their tanks
> go
> dry and their acceleration increases (a RRL plane has about a 0.75G
> capability
> at takeoff, but is able to accelerate at 1.5Gs just prior to running out of
> fuel).
>
> I'm sure the NASCAR and Reno events are complicated enough that to truly
> understand how each competitor is doing, the spectator must consult the
> scoreboard. But if a guy is a Rare Bear fan, he can probably tell pretty
> well
> how the plane is doing just by watching it.
>
> Not so in the RRL. It doesn't mean a thing if their favorite is passing
> other
> racers; it just means the aircraft has burned more fuel. It doesn't mean a
> thing if a racer crosses the finish line in front of others; it may have
> taken
> off minutes before they did. So the spectator's eyes gravitate towards the
> video monitors. By the end of the day, he'll probably come to the conclusion
> that he could have followed the race better from his computer at home.
>
> The discussion on this thread started when Harry asked if the racers were
> just
> racing against the clock. I corrected him... but the more I think about it,
> the
> more I think he had it right. The rockets are aloft at the same time, but
> each
> is racing against an individual clock.

It's beginning to sound more and more like a bicycle time trial.

If it's done right, it could be pretty compelling (look at cycle racing
fans in europe), or it could end up being good for insomniacs.

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>
> The discussion on this thread started when Harry asked if the racers were just
> racing against the clock. I corrected him... but the more I think about it, the
> more I think he had it right. The rockets are aloft at the same time, but each
> is racing against an individual clock.
>
> Ron Wanttaja

It's beginning to sound more like a made for TV stunt.