The amazing thing is, this aircraft was handmade. But they had the great advantage of working with the great designer Burt Rutan, and Dick Rutan was no amateur as a pilot. He was one of the best in the Air Force, flew a fighter over Vietnam, was shot down. He had, I believe, a 20 yr Air Force career. So he had an enormous amount of experience. But like the Wright Bros. in Dayton, OH, they built it themselves. So much for govt sponsored research! Only Lockheed combined homebuilt with govt money.
The porpoising seen at 12:37 was Dick's great fear. He was very reluctant to let Jeana fly it, simply because he knew it was extremely dangerous; it was very difficult to control the porpoising; the autopilot helped enormously. This according to the book.At one point past Africa they had a 90 degree roll and Dick almost lost control.
Thanx. I am out of words. overloaded and awake flying for 72h! Dick must have loved that girl to peaces. On the other hand ..Dick was taking both there lives in his hand. (Are air force pilots and lorry drivers the same? Very independent and not good team players...)
I don't think you non-pilot critics fully understand what "longitudinal divergence" means. It means if he let go of the controls for even a moment they would die before they could change seats.
Already done by The Scaled Composites Model 311 Virgin Atlantic GlobalFlyer (registered N277SF) a single jet engine aircraft designed by Burt Rutan in which Steve Fossett flew a solo nonstop airplane flight around the world in 2 days 19 hours and 1 minute (67 hours 1 minute) from February 28, 2005 until March 3, 2005. The flight speed of 590.7 km/h (342.2 mph). The GlobalFlyer has a fuel capacity of over 18,000 lbs, the Rutan Voyager has 7,010 lbs. Make your own conclusions about fuel efficiency
Already done, twice, in 2005, by Steve Fosset (rip) in a single jet also designed built by Burt Rutan & Scaled Composites: www.aviacioncivil.com.ve/10mo-aniversario-del-1er-vuelo-solo-alrededor-del-mundo-de-steve-fossett-y-el-virgin-atlantic-globalflyer/
I would say that both: - The wing was designed and built stiff enough to not to break due to the lodas, which also meant that it bent into a curve a lot. Being fully loaded with fuel in all its span meant also that they will bent downward. I guess that the weight was taken into consideration but not the aerodynamic forces on take-off. The nose down attitude put the wing in a negative angle of attack, producing negative lift and bending the wing toward to the ground. - The nose down attitude was something that Dick used trying to gain speed (no lift no induced drag) but that made things worse, because that produced negative lift and runway drag, while damaging the wingtips. And despite Burt telling him to pull up, he opted to kept such attitude.
You can see in previous clips the wings did not touch the ground, they had a foot or so, of static clearance. As mentioned above, the negative angle of attack created downward lift which even a small amount on that long of a lever pushed it downward into the pavement. It could also be due to a small amount of washout, wing twist. Intended or not. Ive heard people say, who heard from Dick or Burt in a speech, that the landing gear tires or struts were gas charged to a pressure higher than normal for this flight and that extended their length made the aircraft kneel, and cause negative angle of attack. Ive also heard that the additional fuel in the outboard wings caused the wings to twist as they bent downward, and this twist was not intended and caused the problem. This is the most believable to myself, because all of Burt Rutans designs use clever aeroelastic tailoring that causes the wingtips to twist slightly when the wing is deflected under load. Although this case it appears the twist is backwards from ideal (negative loading).
The amazing thing is, this aircraft was handmade. But they had the great advantage of working with the great designer Burt Rutan, and Dick Rutan was no amateur as a pilot. He was one of the best in the Air Force, flew a fighter over Vietnam, was shot down. He had, I believe, a 20 yr Air Force career. So he had an enormous amount of experience. But like the Wright Bros. in Dayton, OH, they built it themselves. So much for govt sponsored research! Only Lockheed combined homebuilt with govt money.
It feels like it happened yesterday, I remember watching that take off and wondered if they would make it!
The porpoising seen at 12:37 was Dick's great fear. He was very reluctant to let Jeana fly it, simply because he knew it was extremely dangerous; it was very difficult to control the porpoising; the autopilot helped enormously. This according to the book.At one point past Africa they had a 90 degree roll and Dick almost lost control.
Egos can kill other people. Dick did good, but, he put him and her life in danger by refusing to sleep.
Thanx. I am out of words. overloaded and awake flying for 72h! Dick must have loved that girl to peaces. On the other hand ..Dick was taking both there lives in his hand. (Are air force pilots and lorry drivers the same? Very independent and not good team players...)
I don't think you non-pilot critics fully understand what "longitudinal divergence" means.
It means if he let go of the controls for even a moment they would die before they could change seats.
A worthy hero :-)
Lefty! Nice, really nice to see you here! Miss you a lot!!!
Already done by The Scaled Composites Model 311 Virgin Atlantic GlobalFlyer (registered N277SF) a single jet engine aircraft designed by Burt Rutan in which Steve Fossett flew a solo nonstop airplane flight around the world in 2 days 19 hours and 1 minute (67 hours 1 minute) from February 28, 2005 until March 3, 2005. The flight speed of 590.7 km/h (342.2 mph). The GlobalFlyer has a fuel capacity of over 18,000 lbs, the Rutan Voyager has 7,010 lbs. Make your own conclusions about fuel efficiency
One of the world's great technical and aviation achievements the Russians or the Chinese haven't tried to copy.
Just some private citizens getting it done with a little bit of freedom and dreams.
Well, I havent unfortunately read the book yet. I have Vera Foster Rollo book on Burt, and the Guide on RAF aircraft. Not an easy trip!
I have a question, this feat could be done today with less fuel consumption in less time and with a single engine plane, thanks.
Already done, twice, in 2005, by Steve Fosset (rip) in a single jet also designed built by Burt Rutan & Scaled Composites: www.aviacioncivil.com.ve/10mo-aniversario-del-1er-vuelo-solo-alrededor-del-mundo-de-steve-fossett-y-el-virgin-atlantic-globalflyer/
Biggest question, how did they go to toilet, ate and slept?
Plastic bags here, plastics bags there...
Ask the Apollo crew.
So was the dragging of the wingtips at take-off a pilot or a design error?
I would say that both:
- The wing was designed and built stiff enough to not to break due to the lodas, which also meant that it bent into a curve a lot. Being fully loaded with fuel in all its span meant also that they will bent downward. I guess that the weight was taken into consideration but not the aerodynamic forces on take-off. The nose down attitude put the wing in a negative angle of attack, producing negative lift and bending the wing toward to the ground.
- The nose down attitude was something that Dick used trying to gain speed (no lift no induced drag) but that made things worse, because that produced negative lift and runway drag, while damaging the wingtips. And despite Burt telling him to pull up, he opted to kept such attitude.
I think this happened due to the fact that the plane was loaded with 15% more fuel than the usual capacity
You can see in previous clips the wings did not touch the ground, they had a foot or so, of static clearance. As mentioned above, the negative angle of attack created downward lift which even a small amount on that long of a lever pushed it downward into the pavement. It could also be due to a small amount of washout, wing twist. Intended or not. Ive heard people say, who heard from Dick or Burt in a speech, that the landing gear tires or struts were gas charged to a pressure higher than normal for this flight and that extended their length made the aircraft kneel, and cause negative angle of attack.
Ive also heard that the additional fuel in the outboard wings caused the wings to twist as they bent downward, and this twist was not intended and caused the problem. This is the most believable to myself, because all of Burt Rutans designs use clever aeroelastic tailoring that causes the wingtips to twist slightly when the wing is deflected under load. Although this case it appears the twist is backwards from ideal (negative loading).
9 Days of f***in' clouds and drivin' rain...
greenseaships be like living in Ireland
@AlejandroIrausquin >>> Dick Rutan flew for 2+ DAYS STRAIGHT??
My BRAIN would have GONE OFFLINE by the end of the first one!