Steve Fosset does it!
Discussion
Agree, what a fantastic achievement. My longest flight was only about 3.5 hours and I know how tired I felt after that. Not quite the same thing... but I can only imagine the mental strain in keeping alert for that many hours AND having to land safely afterwards. Unfortunately, I missed the news yesterday, so will have to search the 'net for some clips.
All of that... and no coffee!
Pesty - I hadn't heard about using 20% of his fuel on take-off, but I know he hit stronger head-winds than forecast, and that was causing them a big problem in fuel-usage.
All of that... and no coffee!
Pesty - I hadn't heard about using 20% of his fuel on take-off, but I know he hit stronger head-winds than forecast, and that was causing them a big problem in fuel-usage.
i have been very surprised at the poor media coverage of this - i am just about to pick up today's daily telegraph and if they don't give it the coverage it warrants i shall be most miffed and i shall be sending off a "dear sir" missive!
after the acres of coverage - rightly - given to ellen's sailing achievement, this feat should have at least had a few columns and articles, pro rata. maybe it's because it's an american/branson project? maybe it was too quick? i don't think the media understands the achievement.
ps, i know what you mean re: being tired after just a few hours flying - solo i only ever did a maximum of some 4hrs in one stint (and that was only because i was lost, but that's another story!).
rutan is a genius.
ttfn
after the acres of coverage - rightly - given to ellen's sailing achievement, this feat should have at least had a few columns and articles, pro rata. maybe it's because it's an american/branson project? maybe it was too quick? i don't think the media understands the achievement.
ps, i know what you mean re: being tired after just a few hours flying - solo i only ever did a maximum of some 4hrs in one stint (and that was only because i was lost, but that's another story!).
rutan is a genius.
ttfn
Sky coverage was good - although poor Burt Rutan didn't get a single mention in all of the live coverage of the landing yesterday. Why can't they dig up some knowledgeable aviation (or space) people to help the newsreaders and commentators out on these broadcasts. I was dying to find out things like distance to go, air temperature, wind speed and direction at the airport plus a little bit of technical details on the plane itself. The engine never got a mention - no details of its economical efficiency, its thrust and the sheer achievement of flying around the world ONE ONE ENGINE!
But at least we got to see live coverage.
But at least we got to see live coverage.
Widget said:
some 4hrs in one stint (and that was only because i was lost)
And you're admitting this on a public forum?
(Sorry... I've changed my username already - P51Babe).
But hey, I found a use for the sonar smilie!
lol, yes - i'm not ashamed of it any more - it was quite a few years ago, an early solo flight - i don't fly nowadays, you'll be relieved to know!
i may as well come totally clean - yes, i was lost and fuel gauge was beginning to dip so i reconciled myself to finding somewhere to land.
i found a small airstrip, did a low pass and checked it was a good surface so landed. the place was deserted but there was a tiny hangar and in there i found a couple of cessna's and a lone mechanic working on one of them, radio blaring away - i got his attention and our conversation went something like this:
"hi, i wonder if you could tell me where i am?"
"oh, hi - you're lost? no problem - where do you want to get to?"
"enstone airfield"
"oh yes, i know it, you go ...."
(at this point the nice man started giving me ROAD directions so i had to correct him that i had actually - ahem - just landed)
"er, so you're FLYING and lost!? i see - so, where's your map?"
"erm, i didn't take one - i was only supposed to be doing circuits and bumps but i - ahem - got a bit carried away"
...... we found a map in one of the cessna's and i eventually found my way back. i have mixed memories of that incident at hinton in the hedges ...
my instructor at enstone asked where i'd got to - i came clean and he wasn't too sure whether to be angry/hysterically laugh or cry. our close proximity to an at that time very active usaf upper heyford base didn't exactly help his state of mind about my future solo abilities.
it's a fairly good bar room anecdote though, after a few drinkies.
i stick to cars and motorbikes nowadays!
tally ho!!
:-)
Widget said:
some 4hrs in one stint (and that was only because i was lost)
(Sorry... I've changed my username already - P51Babe).
But hey, I found a use for the sonar smilie!
funky microlight - what is it? is it a rotax engine?
I agree that Rutan is a genius but he definitely DID NOT pioneer the use of canards. In fact, the Wright brother's designs were canards - front mounted all moving foreplanes etc. Indeed, many of the early pre WW1 aircraft were built with this configuration (Voisin, Bristol Boxkite, Farman, Curtiss etc etc). It was only when the benefits of tractor propellors over pusher propellors were shown that the balancing "planes" were universally moved to the tail of the aircraft. Throughout the next 50 years numerous canard designs emerged. Most were odd-ball designs (the Miles Libelula for instance) and never entered series production.
Where Rutan has succeeded is in his innovative use of composites and the absolute demonstration of the inherent safety and benign stall characteristics of his canard designs.
Having said that, neither Global Flyer or the Space Ship One mother ships are canards.
Where Rutan has succeeded is in his innovative use of composites and the absolute demonstration of the inherent safety and benign stall characteristics of his canard designs.
Having said that, neither Global Flyer or the Space Ship One mother ships are canards.
Rutan is a genius when it comes to aircraft design, but I still think the Quickie should have stayed on paper... There's a chap at my local airfield who built one and learned to fly in it. Complete fruitcake.
Yup. I do fly proper aeroplanes too, but that is the only one I can call mine... or part mine. Great story, btw.
>> Edited by Widget on Friday 4th March 11:41
egoboss said:
funky microlight - what is it? is it a rotax engine?
Yup. I do fly proper aeroplanes too, but that is the only one I can call mine... or part mine. Great story, btw.
>> Edited by Widget on Friday 4th March 11:41
In aviation, "canard" denotes tail first.
There were some interesting canards (not too dissimilar to Rutan's basic layout) built in Germany in the 1930s.
The Miles Libelula from the 1940s (already mentioned) is very Rutanish in its looks too.
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Friday 4th March 13:41
There were some interesting canards (not too dissimilar to Rutan's basic layout) built in Germany in the 1930s.
The Miles Libelula from the 1940s (already mentioned) is very Rutanish in its looks too.
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Friday 4th March 13:41
Eric Mc said:
Why can't they dig up some knowledgeable aviation (or space) people to help the newsreaders and commentators out on these broadcasts.
Here here!
In one recent BBC Two documentary there was a reference to a chap flying PR Spits - so they promptly showed a Hurricane II D shooting at some sand, a Mustang 1, and eventually some late mark Spit. Considering the number of these types of documentary they make you'd think they'd hire someone who could tell one type from t'other. Eric Mc said:
I agree that Rutan is a genius but he definitely DID NOT pioneer the use of canards. In fact, the Wright brother's designs were canards - front mounted all moving foreplanes etc. Indeed, many of the early pre WW1 aircraft were built with this configuration (Voisin, Bristol Boxkite, Farman, Curtiss etc etc). It was only when the benefits of tractor propellors over pusher propellors were shown that the balancing "planes" were universally moved to the tail of the aircraft. Throughout the next 50 years numerous canard designs emerged. Most were odd-ball designs (the Miles Libelula for instance) and never entered series production.
Where Rutan has succeeded is in his innovative use of composites and the absolute demonstration of the inherent safety and benign stall characteristics of his canard designs.
Having said that, neither Global Flyer or the Space Ship One mother ships are canards.
Early canards were used as control surfaces. Rutan's designs had canards as lifting surfaces, or nose wings. Canards can indeed have benign stall characteristics, but if a canard stall isn't reacted to, and the main wing stalls, the canard can then make it virtually impossible to recover this stall. (or so i've been told)
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff