Ron Wanttaja wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:10:07 -0700, John Ousterhout
wrote:

ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:
I'd bet a nickle the closest he gets to flying one of those racers will be a
photo op with him in the cockpit .That way he can get rid of the pic of him in
the engineless F-104 and replace it with something newer :-)
I believe that the chance of Captain Zoom ever racing a rocket is less
than the chance of me ever flying that F-104.

But I'll issue a public apology to Jim Campbell if he ever acts as PIC
in a Rocket Race.

Better define "Race," Filbert...two planes chasing each other, like the fake
Reno races at Oshkosh? Or an actual competition where the winners aren't
pre-programmed?

According to Wikipedia, the race course is at 1,500 feet, following a
computer-generated course. Funny thing is, five minutes worth of clicking on
the RRL site didn't lead to a description that even gave THAT much information.
Until you find out what RRL's definition of a "race" is, I wouldn't place any
bets.

Did find this picture on the RRL site, which is a real howler:

http://www.rocketracingleague.com/ga.../runwaybig.jpg

Note how the runway is just two wingspans wide, and the grandstands are RIGHT at
the runway edge. We're finally seeing the results of Campbell's input. :-)

Each race (again, according to Wikipedia) is supposed to last 90 minutes, with
the planes carrying four minutes of fuel. World record for a rocket pit stop is
something like three hours. Even if they get that down to 15 minutes (including
the time to tow the plane to the fuel station and back to the runway), that's
STILL a lot of gliding time.

Ron Wanttaja


It seems to me using solid fuel rocket engines would make more sense
for racing. Each airplane would have two engines, one high impulse for
take off and the other a long duration burn for the race. It seems to me
rapid engine changes would be possible.

I have always thought a replica Me163 with a solid fuel engine would
be a rather nice air show draw.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired