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.