"Brent" ""b b i g l e r \"@ y a h o o . c o m" wrote in message
...
They're saying the Global Flyer's jet engine burns 102 pounds of fuel an
hour. If that kind of fuel weighs in at 6 pounds per gallon, that's about
17 gallons an hour, or roughly double what I burn in the little Cherokees
I fly. Then again, the jet propelled the Flyer about 2 times as fast with
a max weight some 4 times greater (again, compared to a Cherokee). It
seems to me that somebody might by in the market for a plane with
characteristics like that...but am I missing something?

--Brent

First, that 102 pounds per hour is under a very special set of
circumstances - less than full thrust, and at fairly high altitude - 45,000'
or so. Jets are much more efficient up there. IIRC, the fuel burn was
several times that during the early part of the flight.

As to there being a market for a plane like that, I'm sure there would be
one IF the aircraft didn't come with all of the compromises that give the
Global Flyer its tremendous performance. What limitations, you ask? 100+
foot wingspan isn't very ramp friendly at many small fields. Razor thin
structural margins which would make moderate turbulence a chancey
proposition. The light wing loading and slick design mean the aircraft has
*special* needs in the landing pattern - you saw the drag chutes? Also, the
light weight and large physical size probably make the airplane a real
handful in crosswinds.

There are plenty of other compromises that were made to achieve the GF's
performance, and most of 'em work against using the aircraft for practical
transportation...

KB