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

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 I am a bit out of date but my understanding is that it is timed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

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 I am a bit out of date but my understanding is that it is timed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/pr.../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

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/pr.../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

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

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.

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" 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

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

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.

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.