Scaled Composites builds plane for solo nonstop globe circumnavigation attempt

Aviation Week & Space Technology
10/27/2003, page 14

Virgin Atlantic Airways plans to use a Scaled Composites aircraft in
an attempt next year to complete the first solo nonstop
circumnavigation of the globe. The aircraft, dubbed the GlobalFlyer,
will be flown by either Steve Fossett or Virgin Atlantic Chairman
Richard Branson. Branson is acting as the reserve pilot. The aim is to
complete the flight in less than 80 hr. The Burt Rutan-designed,
composite-material aircraft has a maximum gross weight of 22,066 lb.
and an empty weight of 3,577 lb., which allows for 18,000 lb. of fuel.
Wingspan is 114 ft. The GlobalFlyer is powered by a single Williams
FJ44-3 turbofan engine. Maximum altitude for the pressurized cockpit
aircraft is 52,000 ft.

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

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 00:01:13 +0000, 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


"Sir Richard Branson and Steve Fossett announce plans to attempt the
world's first non-stop solo flight around the globe without refuelling."

http://www.virginatlanticglobalflyer.com/

--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
e-mail: khorton02(_at_)rogers(_dot_)com

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.

David O wrote:
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.

A friend of mine logged a .3 while flying an F-111 at 300 feet and Mach
..95 (ingress) and Mach 1.3 (egress) in a Maple Flag exercise in Canada.
They burned 20,000+ lbs of go juice. I guess 18,000 lbs screamed "low
fuel light" to them. : )


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've had an interest in dynamic soaring, where you can extract energy
from the boundary of two different air streams (it's how an albatross
stays airborne just above the ocean). The ultimate would be to soar the
boundary of the jet stream, unpowered. Probably not doable, but never
say never. you might be able to extend the range at least this way.

Google "dynamic soaring" for more info.

nafod40 wrote:

Actually, Dave, the clip I posted was the entire article. To me,
though, 18,000 lb of fuel kinda screamed "unrefueled" anyway.

A friend of mine logged a .3 while flying an F-111 at 300 feet and Mach
.95 (ingress) and Mach 1.3 (egress) in a Maple Flag exercise in Canada.
They burned 20,000+ lbs of go juice. I guess 18,000 lbs screamed "low
fuel light" to them. : )

One word: context. A single Williams FJ44-3 turbofan, 18,000 lb of
fuel, and a composite aircraft built by Burt Rutan for an around the
world attempt screams "unrefueled" to me. It should also scream
unrefueled to those with a knowledge of modern small turbofan SFC's
and a modicum of common sense.

David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com

David O wrote:
nafod40 wrote:


Actually, Dave, the clip I posted was the entire article. To me,
though, 18,000 lb of fuel kinda screamed "unrefueled" anyway.


A friend of mine logged a .3 while flying an F-111 at 300 feet and Mach
.95 (ingress) and Mach 1.3 (egress) in a Maple Flag exercise in Canada.
They burned 20,000+ lbs of go juice. I guess 18,000 lbs screamed "low
fuel light" to them. : )


One word: context. A single Williams FJ44-3 turbofan, 18,000 lb of
fuel, and a composite aircraft built by Burt Rutan for an around the
world attempt screams "unrefueled" to me. It should also scream
unrefueled to those with a knowledge of modern small turbofan SFC's
and a modicum of common sense.

Your reply to my post screams "lack of sense of humor"

David O wrote:

It should also scream unrefueled to those with a
knowledge of modern small turbofan SFC's
and a modicum of common sense.

Look, I'm really sorry I asked, OK?

Dave 'outta decaf?' Hyde

David O wrote:

To me, though, 18,000 lb of fuel kinda screamed "unrefueled" anyway.

It's all a matter of scale. When I'm using my GA brain it
screams 'massive fuel spill,' but when I'm using my professional
brain it screams 'double cycle' or 'buster.' Both of my
brains tend to scream a lot, so it's sometimes hard to
decide which to listen to. Sometimes, and it happens here
a lot, I don't use either one.

Dave 'LALALALALALA' Hyde

"David O" wrote in message
...

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.

As long as they didn't eat or drink for three days.
Gives a whole new meaning to the term "a fast flight".

Tim Ward